ODF Plugins and a Microsoft Promise of Cooperation 262
Andy Updegrove writes "Last week, the Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD) issued a Request for Information (RFI) on any plugins that might be under development to assist it in migrating from a MS Office environment to one based upon software that supports ODF. The RFI acknowledges the fact that it may be necessary or advantageous to see some of the code in Office in order to enable the types of features that the ITD is looking for. Conveniently, Jason Matusow, Microsoft's Director of Standards Affairs, had this to say on the occasion of ODF's approval by the members of ISO and the IEC: "The ODF format is limited to the features and performance of OpenOffice and StarOffice and would not satisfy most of our Microsoft Office customers today. Yet we will support interoperability with ODF documents as they start to appear and will not oppose its standardization or use by any organization. The richness of competitive choices in the market is good for our customers and for the industry as a whole." Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:5, Funny)
embrace and extend!!
Re:let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't win, can they?
Re:let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:5, Informative)
Based on what they did to Java, HTML and everything else they have ever touched it'll be a almost compliant version, to an out of date standard, that is a massive pain in the ass to use with non-MS products. (Ref IIS/IE/Frontpage etc etc.)
KOffice also supports the ODF format (Score:5, Informative)
Micro$soft is lying through their nose. They know very well that KOffice [koffice.org], the Free & Open Source office suite that comes with the KDE [kde.org] desktop environment also supports the ODF format. In fact, they were publically informed [slashdot.org] about KOffice's capabilities last year in a open letter [kde.org] sent by the KOffice developers.
Yet they continue to spread the outright lie that only OpenOffice and its derivatives support the Oasis Open Document Format (ODF) [oasis-open.org].
KOffice has a much cleaner architecture and a leaner codebase than OpenOffice, making its startup faster and facilitating the addition of new features [koffice.org]. Because improving KOffice to meet the usability needs of governments, businesses and disabled individuals can be done with much less effort, KOffice is an even greater threat to Micro$oft.
Re:KOffice also supports the ODF format (Score:2)
I think the more important question is does MS Office have features that OOo/StarOffice don't have? If so, are they features that would be disabled by using ODF, or are they things like, say, formatting a table is easier in MS Word* but once its formatted it can be saved just fine as ODF?
MS wants to give people the impression that using ODF will cripple MS Office down to the level of OOo**, but that's just not the case. MS Office people will sti
Re:KOffice also supports the ODF format (Score:2, Informative)
Apart from that, this has been the case virtually every time you chose to export a document from whatever source to whatever format, so I don't really see why there is such a big fuzz about all of it. Having one dedicated format for 'office documen
Re:KOffice also supports the ODF format (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love to rewrite that dialog so that it says something like
"you are about to save in a text-only format. are you sure? if you do this, you will be able to access this information for the rest of your life, even if you don't continue to buy our software. Think about it very carefully, then press continue...
Re:KOffice also supports the ODF format (Score:3, Informative)
Qt has pretty much always had a Windows version. The problem with Qt3, which is what KOffice 1.x uses, is that the Windows version isn't available under a F/OSS license. Qt4, however, is F/OSS-friendly on all three major platforms instead of just Mac and *nix/X11.
KDE4 and KOffice 2 will use Qt4 (this is probably the porting that you were thinking of). With KDE and KOffice using a toolkit
Re:let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:2)
Re:let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:2)
*sigh* OK, if Microsoft don't implement ODF they are rejecting open standards. If they do, they're embracing and extending.
They can't win, can they?
Think about it as the case of an ex convicted con artist. If he doesn't try to get a job, he must be up to something. If he does, he must be doing it as part of a scam.
Given Microsoft history, that's more or less their position, they will always be suspects, they can't win, of course, but they put themselves in that position through their past actions regarding
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (Score:2)
if Microsoft don't implement ODF they are rejecting open standards. If they do, they're embracing and extending.
They can't win, can they?
Microsoft has spent more than 25 years developing its reputation as the business partner who will steal your ideas then stab you in the back and dump your carcass in the ditch as they continue their triumphant shamble down the Information Highway.
Microsoft has put more time, money, and effort into developing this reputation than they have put into developing any of
Re:let me be the 1st to say ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gosh, not that I'd like to insult the integrity of a company with such a spectacular record of interoperability and standards compliance as Microsoft, but I really just can't think of anything obvious that their closed document format offers beyond lack of compatibility with anything but their own products.
Re:So uh... (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, open up a Word document that you've worked on and modified several times. Select the whole document, copy it, paste it into a new document, and save it. The documents should largely be identical (you might've missed headers and footers or page margins). Now compare the fize sizes. The old document might be several megabytes. The new one is probably a few hundred K.
What's missing? Gobs and gobs of metadata about every keystroke, ever action, every cursor positioning.
Ever open up a Word document, scroll arounda nd read but make no changes, close it, and have Word ask to save changes? Metadata.
Re:So uh... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can see the same thing if you print it to a file, in PDF format. Instead of positioning the cursor at the start of a line and then printing the line, Word does a separate cursor positioning for each character. A typical PDF file printed by MS-Word is at least ten times as big as would be needed to print the document in exactly the same format using the features of the PDF standard.
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
Re:So uh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most likly cause: multiple development groups. One develops the file format, one develops what is saved, one develops what is used from session to session.
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
The features name is "Track changes" (Score:2)
Word's "Track Changes" feature is one of the few things that make it such a useful writing tool. Every version of MS Word since Office 95 has it, and they all allow you to customize what is seen and how it's seen. Don't want the balloons in XP-on? Do what I do and turn them off. Want to only see the changes from Director Bob, or ignore al
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
this sounds like you have "QuickSave" (ot whatever its called in english) enabled. (this appends all Changed to the file)
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
Re:So uh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, there are lots of features only found in MS Word that aren't in OpenOffice. These are things like their document wizard, VBA scripting, object insertion, watermarking, cross-referencing, index marking, and our favorite, Clippy the paperclip.
Ever used these features? No? That's probably why they're not in OpenOffice.
There are several reasons for all of these features: You've got one application that's trying to make sure that anyone who uses it can find the features they need. Because MS has hundreds of developers working full time on MS office, and they got to do something to justify their jobs. It looks good in ad copy (millions of features!). And, it is an important element of FUD. (If you switch to OpenOffice, there might be some feature not in OpenOffice that you will need.)
Re:So uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, although rarely.
VBA scripting
Yes.
object insertion
Yes.
cross-referencing
Yes.
Ever used these features? No? That's probably why they're not in OpenOffice.
Just because *you* don't use a feature, or know anyone else that does, doesn't mean that no-one uses it.
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
Because most slashdotters are unix guys and they don't understand complex software or modern technology. To them, if a program uses color, it's a waste of time, resources and processor clicks. Don't worry, they're a dying breed and on their way out.
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
as is index marking and watermarking, also used them (or seen them in use on documents i've opened)
If by object insertion you mean ole objects, then yes openoffice also supports that but it will result in proprietary binary blobs existing inside your document which is far from ideal.
There is no clippy, but openoffice does sport an almost-as-annoying lightbulb.
And as to VBA scripting, openoffice supports macros written in openoffice basic, java,
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
Re:So uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
>
> And, it is an important element of FUD
Is it just me, or is there a certain irony to be observed in the above statements?
- Oisin
Decent performance; extended XML (Score:5, Informative)
Beyond that, I can't say there's too much I've run into that I can do in Office but not OO.o . A lot of things are much smoother in Office, though
I think MS's argument is a lot weaker with regards to the file format, though I'm certainly no expert. I do expect that they'll be able to implement their own formats with better performance in Office than the ODF formats, but that's hardly surprising given that they designed them with that as one of their key goals.
More interestingly, the Office XML formats require implementing programs to preserve unrecognised valid markup from other namespaces. This lets you do things like embed (eg) an order record in an Office document, embed a JDF specification (when Publisher gets around to going XML as well), and so on. It's not exciting for the end user, but for developers and larger businesses it's a really nice thing to see. One could argue that Microsoft are getting XML "right" in a way that few have so far. Most interestingly by far, you can link the foreign markup in to your Office documents, so that (eg) a user can fill in a form in a document that's actually an XForm with your own structured data. Alternately, a newspaper could insert some custom metadata when exporting stories from a database, so it can tell what's been done with it, keep the DB up to date when the story is imported again, and so on. It's quite interesting stuff. Check out Brian Jones' weblog for some interesting use cases and discussion (and some persistent questions about the licensing issues from me).
The ODF spec only briefly refers to this issue at all. IIRC it permits apps to do this perservation, but does not require it or provide any facilities to support it. If apps aren't required to preserve your markup, then in my view it's not much darn good - it's somewhat like saying that apps may preserve your document text and structure. OpenOffice doesn't preserve foreign markup at all. If it's not directly in the ODF spec, you can't use it. This really loses one of the great advantages that XML has, and is very disappointing.
If we had a standard office document format that I could rely on having these features, there are some very interesting things I could do with it, especially at work. This fragementation and the ODF limitations are extremely frustrating, especially given that the ODF folks are always banging on the XML gong while missing one of the key abilities of XML entirely.
I think MS screwed up very badly at the start by attacking ODF with rhetoric and poorly thought out garbage, not a solid arguement over capabilities and other real issues. Insufficient audiovisual support indeed...
Personally I don't care much whether ODF or MS Office XML wins, so long as the resulting standard:
Re:Decent performance; extended XML (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
They don't have to, there is a bit of them that John Doe will never use, but bother some more advanced users. Like plotting experimental data with different error (uncertainity) value for each measurement. In OOo it's possible to do just the basics - i.e. same error (+/- value or percentage) for each measurement.
This of course could bring questions like what sick people use Excel for p
Re:So uh... (Score:4, Informative)
Another alternative is R [r-project.org], which is much more powerful than anything MS Office has to offer, is Free, and runs on most platforms.
Re:So uh... (Score:2, Informative)
Honestly, right now, Office 97 suits plenty of people's needs compared to 2003 or XP or 2000. A lot of offices still use Office 2000 or XP and will not bother with getting 2003 ever. There's just no need. The amount of money and time to deploy on systems is not worth it to them. Secondly, what are the new features after XP to 2003 that are so important? Nothing at all. Not even from 97.
I like to think of what I did with Offic
Re:So uh... (missing features) (Score:2)
The OpenDocument Foundation already has a plugin (Score:4, Informative)
slashdot covered the plugin too... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:slashdot covered the plugin too... (Score:2)
Maybe slashdot uses dupes to keep unloyal users informed!
Re:The OpenDocument Foundation already has a plugi (Score:2)
We gave the government a way to keep using M$ Office. We as tax payers are paying the license fees for the government. If the plugin hadn't been available, odf format was mandated, and MS Office was not capable. The government may have had to use cheaper or free software. Saving the tax payer money. Money that could then be spent on o
Re:The OpenDocument Foundation already has a plugi (Score:2)
Re:The OpenDocument Foundation already has a plugi (Score:2)
Re:The OpenDocument Foundation already has a plugi (Score:2)
Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
This is extremely significant news. What this means is that, after years and years of MSO having no competition, years after they basically wiped out wordperfect etc... There is now significant competition to Microsoft Office, and they are being forced to acknowledge it.
Hopefully this will mean that Microsoft will start developing some new revolutionary stuff in Microsoft Office instead of just resting on their laurels (sorry but I don't think any version since 6.0 has been that huge of an upgrade compared to going to 6.0). This is good news. We are all going to get better products instead of everyone just copying each other's minor features.
Open Office is here to stay. They have succesfully gotten a multi-billion dollar company to acknowledge them as a serious competitor just like Linux forced them to acknowledge that windows has competition. Microsoft no longer has the monopoly they did a few years ago.
Genuinely interested (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly all the users in our office are doing standard officey things in MS Office. None of them use features that aren't present in OpenOffice - in fact, hardly any of them use MS Office as anything more than a glorified typewriter with a handy spell checker.
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
But I would say most if not all features in MS office are there because someone, somewhere needs those features on a regular basis. You might not know of any of these people but there are probably people out there who would kiss Bill Gates personally for the inclusion of this feature that makes their task so much easier.
People don't need most features (Score:5, Informative)
No. About ten years ago I read an interview by a top executive from Microsoft (Nathan Myrwold, iirc) that most features do not come from customer requests, but from magazine comparisons. When someone wrote an article comparing different office suites they would include a table with tickmarks showing which features were included in each software. It became an obvious competitive advantage to have more tickmarks than the competition.
In that interview, Myrwold mentioned that MS-Word had over a thousand different commands, and that was a problem because most of those commands would never be used by the majority of users and it had a big impact on usability. That's how Clippy was born, it was an attempt to concilate the wants of marketing who insist on putting useless features with the needs of users who want to perform simple tasks most of the time.
Office is the bloated one? (Score:2)
Office might've been bloated once, and arguably still is, but it's nothing compared to the awe-inspiring bulk of OO.o in action.
Re:Office is the bloated one? (Score:2)
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree that people use features in MS Office that aren't present i
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
Those silly scripted pieces of annoyance are rolled out to every user in a large organization, and hey presto, most users of office are using "advanced" features, mostly because they can't be turned off easily.
I've not been in a large enterprise
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
That's like saying that you haven't been in a large enterprise organisation that did NOT have shell scripts in their unix machines, or that didn't depend on C programming - it must be on page 1 of The Unix Programming Environment.
Seriously, if you buy a tool and don't use its features... S
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
you either have to deploy ms office everywhere or live with the huge pain of multiple almost but not quite compatible office suites. Much the same thing happens with different versions of office itself in fact.
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
These days I no longer spend weeks working on building one spreadsheet (thank God) and I am quite happy with Gnumeric.
Not everyone agrees with me and one guy who used to work for me, and now does do big spreadsheets using Excel, says he prefers Excel.
The embedded video and audio in office documents is a menace. It just gets used as a way of emailing stuff tha
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, the way it goes seems to be they start out with MS Word, as it is most familiar. After having lost a couple of papers to its mysteries, they switch to OO Writer. Now, OpenOffice seems to lose just as much data
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
MikTeX (Score:2)
It is very easy to install. I can get nearly identical output from the windows workstations at work as I get on my Linux machines. One particularly nice feature is that if you request the use of a package that isn't installed to your texmf folder, it will prompt you & ask you if you want to download it from CTAN. I suppose that this might not work well for multi-user environments. So, perhaps your peers want to use other packages, but don't have permis
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
LyX and LaTeX (Score:2)
For any math stuff, you should use LaTeX or some frontend like LyX.
Word is a disaster, and MathType is awful. Wjy reproduce that garbage?
Maybe OO could use some LyX Matheditor code to create eps objects for equations. This is basically what I do with tgif, where I have nice eps equation images. Click on them, it opens Lyx to edit, save and close lyx and the equation is exported to ps, converted to eps, then uploaded into tgif again. Basically, tgif allows you to add the lyx file onto the eps image and s
Re:LyX and LaTeX (Score:2)
Actually, you can... (Score:2)
You can insert video (as well as many other types of media).
Insert...
Plugins
Then just choose which type of media you're inserting.
I can't say I think it's very useful, but it can be done.
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
When taking a Numeric Methods For Differential Equations course, I got the other students in my group to install OpenOffice exactly because of the math editor!! We would still be writing equations if we used MSOffice!!
I remember writing equations with
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
Math Editors in MS Word, OO.o Writer (Score:2)
A couple points:
Remember they were discussing differences in file formats. ODF is no worse at storing equations than DOC. I have DOCs that I've converted to ODT in OO.o writer & equations are identical. (You did mention these were "implementation issues (by which you really mean INTERFACE issues," but it is worth emphasizing.)
Also: the equation editor that ships with Word is VERY bad. It is basically a limited sha
Re:Math Editors in MS Word, OO.o Writer (Score:2)
I do understand that. However, for a file format to be really useful, it must have good application support. So far, the app that supports it best is OO.o, but it still needs to be improved a lot (which is what I was trying to point out).
Can you clarify what you mean by [sound is] "buggy?" Or at least give examples?
I mean that 1) it's a bit of a pain to insert sounds in the first place and 2) On both my machines, sounds don't even work when I'm in pre
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
Granted, I rarely use OpenOffice, but am curious to see how it stacks up. I actually do enjoy the fact that many of the more "advanced" features in word work extremely well when I need them. The features for managing large documents are appreciated as well with support for tables-of-contents and excellent footnote support.
I'm no big Microsoft fan
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I get some of what you're smoking? The commenting is one hell of a mess. Oh yeah, it looks all shiney and look! colours! on the surface, but have you ever tried to really _work_ with it? The only use is within small workgroups where a little bit of improved communication would make it superfluous anyways.
I've tried working with both commenting and versioning in a non-trivial environment where several different - and at times hostile - parties are involved. You can forget about it. We're currently using
In
And let's not even speak about versioning. 20 year old CVS beats it with one arm tied behind its back.
Almost all of Words advanced features are half-assed at best. I'll celebrate the day its market share plummets to insignificance.
Removing personal info in OOo (Score:2)
Tools - Options - General - OpenOffice.org - Remove personal information on saving (tick it)
You can also go into File - Properties - General and then press the Delete user data button on any existing document to clear revisions, user data etc.
HTH
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that the granparent's point was that this feature (commenting/version-tracking) is useful in some circumstances and is not included in Open Office. And I am willing to agree that it is useful in many cirucumstances. However:
OO
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:3, Insightful)
(* Note that I said primarily; please don't take me to task because not only geeks read slashdot
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Genuinely interested (Score:2)
After 15 years using MS Office, I've never found a "common" (to me) feature that OpenOffice can't replicate. YMMV.
I think what this announcement translates to is "Resistance is futile! You will be assimulated." Meaning: We will ensure that every time you us a MSFT product to open a ODF file, it will be converted to the superior technology without delay and we will repeatedly question the intelligence of any motions to continue with this puny ODF format. This is typical behaviour for their software app
Time for the obligatory Admiral Ackbar quote (Score:4, Funny)
Jonathan
http://www.justgofaster.com/ [justgofaster.com]
Slowly (Score:2)
delusions about ms office (Score:5, Insightful)
I am constantly amazed by the sort of mass-delusion people seem to have about MS office, intentionally perpetuated by ms - the idea that ms office is a framework of acceptably workable office productivity applications. Wrong wrong wrong.
Each and every office application is buggy, has gaping holes in terms of usability (for example the Access report designer makes adding columns to data a nightmare - you have to align line elements to the pixels manually, or use the severely clunky grid system), and makes any use beyond bare minimum severely frustrating (my job is to work with Microsoft Office and I'm at expert level with it so I know those only too well).
Microsoft dominate the market, and they have abused it as most public companies in a monopoly would do. The software is incomplete and as far as I'm concerned unacceptably faulty but it's the best out there given that they have had virtually no competition. Now that's changing, they act as if their so-far monopolised customer base would find other software unacceptably bad. It's ridiculous.
Thank God for open source giving people a more usable, workable solution not only for portability's sake but to finally give us an alternative so we can all show ms what is and isn't acceptable. In my opinion it isn't there yet - but it's only a matter of time before Openoffice exceeds MS in terms of functionality I'm convinced of it.
I know I'm probably gonna be modded down for trolling/off-topic/etc. but I feel so strongly about this - please can we all stop acting as if their software is acceptable. In any other industry a company producing such faulty goods would have gone out of business, and rightly so from the customer's point of view. We're only encouraging Microsoft to not bother fixing anything time and time again if we stay complacent, and yet again us customers' will be cheated out of decent software. They could do it. They have very talented people working for them. But they only understand the language of commerce - so let's make the competition strong and force them to change their ways. It's time for change.
/rant
Re:delusions about ms office (Score:2)
Disruptive Technologies (Score:2)
Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
ODF is indeed geared toward OO.o's needs (Score:2)
Allow me to quote from http://xml.openoffice.org/ [openoffice.org]
OpenOffice.org XML file format: The OpenOffice.org XML file format is the native file format of OpenOffice.org 1.0. It has been replaced by the OASIS Op
Re:ODF is indeed geared toward OO.o's needs (Score:2)
Ah, but thats where you are wrong. MS *pretended* to open up their formats. In reality, there will still be XML-encoded binary portions that will only be understandable using MS provided Windows-only libraries, and their licensing terms prohibit GPL software from implementing it.
ODF had to have somwhere to start - it would have taken quite a bit longe
Re:ODF is indeed geared toward OO.o's needs (Score:2)
This is a contest between open formats (where the use controls access to and use of the documents they create and closed formats where Microsoft controls access to and use of users documents. This is an important distinction. For Microsoft, it is about control of the customer. For OpenOffice.org it is about giving the user control.
It's not really about functionali
Embrace & Destroy (Score:4, Insightful)
Transparent as it is, the strategy is remarkably effective. The masses blame the standards-compliant software for "not working", not Microsoft for having poisoned the standard. The courts will sit on their hands and a couple of billion-dollar buyouts will silence the commercial opposition.
Re:Embrace & Destroy (Score:3, Informative)
Add C++ and Kerberos to the list.
Oh, and Active Directory is a clever way to sabotage LDAP.
Let's see now ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kooks. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is more like Microsoft must provide ODF compatibility or the state government as well as local governments will not be buying Office. Notice that this promise came after they tried to bribe and threaten the state government to back down on its ODF requirement.
Failure to reverse the ODF decision means that no matter what decision Microsoft makes they will lose the Office monopoly. Bill Gates can choose to keep a piece of the action or lose everything.
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:3, Insightful)
The two examples that you provide are probably used by 0.01% of Microsoft Word documents. I would not call them "real world" examples.
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsofts wants to support ODF, and needs more features, all they'd have to do is propose extensions and present a well founded argument for why they should be allowed. They haven't.
In essence, Microsoft likes to whine about this, because it serves their purpose to keep ODF adoption rates down, but they show no interest in doing anything about it.
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:2)
What would be the point in us emailing them? Microsoft has its own representatives on the committees responsible for this standard, at least with respect to the OSI. I'm sure they would be welcome to participate elsewhere too. If they want to contribute their suggestions then there's nothing st
That's fine (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is that the constituents of the Commonwealth should be able to read the digital documents produced by their government. It is FUD in the most classic sense that the idea was to mandate some ODF-only office suite that allowed people to work only in ODF. This is not the case. The point is accessibility for the final product.
Think of a magazine. Magazines are commonly laid out in Quark XPress (as a common example). Quark has features like revision control, graphics control, text kerning and leading and flow-control. Myriad tweakable parameters that allow the people who work on the magazine to make it look and read the way they feel is best. We as magazine readers do not need this functionality at all in order to read the magazine. We just want to be able to pick up the publication and flip through the pages and read stories, look at pictures, and so on. These are two completely different modes of interacting with the document that are not mutually exclusive, but that intersect in the act of publication. ODF is this simplified translation for uses that do not require things like XAML.
This is where Microsoft sought to sow seeds of doubt that the sky of document creation and workflow was falling. This is not the case, and what we read here is that what ODF proponents predicted has come true: Microsoft would not stand in the way of their users choosing to "Save As..." in the ODF format. It's just bad business for them to do so and I for one see this story as Microsoft acknowledging a big, fat "I told you so."
I don't even want to touch the accessibility/ADA aspects of embedded media, which is entirely uneccessary for the purposes that Massachussetts wants to use ODF for, but that Microsoft purported to be 110% necessary for anybody to create documents in the future. They were trying to embrace and extend their reach into the very act of creating a document. Is any government document dependent on the creator being able to publish their Inkitudes in a native format? I don't think so! The fact remains, however, that government employees can use whatever techniques they like to create a document, but if it's going to wind up being a public document then people need to be able to access it forevermore. I certainly didn't see them promising THAT in the runup to MA's decision to use ODF.
ODF is just another output format and there's no reason that the laws and other byproducts of governmental communication can't be published in a format that people can be confident can be incorporated into future products - it being an open and documented format - and won't be aged out in favor of Microsoft's decision that maybe Ink should be the lingua franca of Office formats (downsampled into Palatino if desired). Microsoft did not want to cede control of one iota of their Office franchise and they preferred to be able to hold the reins on just what software would be able to read a Microsoft Office document.
Office 2007 formats are standards (Score:2)
Is that why Office 2007's default formats will be open standards, recognized by ECMA, and later ISO?
Is that why the OpenXML developer's group already provides Java sample code that manipulates that file format without any need for Office 2007 being used?
Is that why a Novel dev is already working on a spreadsheet
Re:Office 2007 formats are standards (Score:2)
"Competitors are... effectively precluded from bidding against Microsoft or its suppliers for any... contract specifying use of Microsoft's software file formats." He first noted that the patent license for the format "is structured to be read restrictively, in Microsoft's favor... it states that: 'All rights not expressly granted in this license are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights are granted by implication or estoppel or otherwise.' This is not the customary 'all rights reserv
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:5, Informative)
"Ink" information can be stored in an ODF document using the Gif format as a metatdata container. This can be specified by using the Gif parameter of the Ink.Save Method.
From MSDN;
Gif
2
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:3, Interesting)
You say,
Here's the problem. Someone gives me a document with ink and associated content. I decide to use a "not ink-enabled" app to alter the document, and then pass the altered document to someone that views it with "an ink-enabled application". The document that I pas
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:2)
And you'd be foolish to edit something in an app that doesn't support it!
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't say that, Microsoft did. It's a quote from their Tablet PC API documentation.
Re:Before we get the usual FUD and Tinfoil Respons (Score:2, Insightful)
Fix the huge problem first and then aim for new features. I'm a little doubtful that a significant amount of the population will start using much of what is added at this point to the very mature product that is a
Re:Couldn't agree more (Score:2)
ODF is XML, so by default ODF has this ability. In addition, ODF has partial support of W3C XForms.
There is no way in ODF to include your own data with your own schema (in a separate namespace) and have OO.o preserve that data, keep it with the appropraite document elements, delete it if the associated document elements are deleted, and so on.
This isn't a problem with the form
Why am I replying? (Score:3, Interesting)
The simplest reason to want to preserve your own markup is to integrate with other systems. Here's a simplistic example: A content management system may want to store the identity of a document in the document in such a way as that it can be reognised as the same document when re-imported into the CMS after someone's been working on it on some disconnected laptop.
Re:Why am I replying? (Score:2)
Since the goal of the ODF is to have a transparent document that can be displayed or edited by any software that supports the standard, there can be no room for allowing extensions. If you want such things, work in anothe
Re:OO = Basic (Score:2)
Please wait while I wet myself laughing at your ignorance.
From your post I have extracted the following metadata: