Comments on: ODF 1.2 Committee Draft 01 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=odf-12-committee-draft-01 Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2300 Rob Tue, 12 May 2009 16:18:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2300 My current guess is we have ODF 1.2 as an OASIS Standard done in Q3 2009. I haven't seen any official date given for Office 14, so I don't know how that fits in. Microsoft typically does a SP3 for their N Office releases, right around the same time they come out with Office release N+1. So it would be good to see ODF 1.2 support both in Office 14 as well as in Office 2007 SP3. My current guess is we have ODF 1.2 as an OASIS Standard done in Q3 2009. I haven’t seen any official date given for Office 14, so I don’t know how that fits in. Microsoft typically does a SP3 for their N Office releases, right around the same time they come out with Office release N+1. So it would be good to see ODF 1.2 support both in Office 14 as well as in Office 2007 SP3.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2299 Anonymous Tue, 12 May 2009 14:06:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2299 How long is this going to take? Is it going to be finalized before MSOffice 14? How long is this going to take? Is it going to be finalized before MSOffice 14?

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2160 Rob Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:55:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2160 @Gopal,<br/><br/>You can read the details of the vote in the <a HREF="http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00202.html" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">minutes</a>.<br/><br/>I won't speculate on motives in this case. We're certainly not going to have our GM's issue a grand "Open Letter" to the industry saying "Boo-hoo, lookie here, Microsoft voted against ODF, sob, waah, waah". The Committee Draft was approved and by wide margins. Now we move on.<br/><br/>[Note that the minutes are listing the vote as a 9-2-2 result. This is based on rechecking the attendance records of members to see who had voting rights at the time of the vote. This knocked off one of the Yes votes.] @Gopal,

You can read the details of the vote in the minutes.

I won’t speculate on motives in this case. We’re certainly not going to have our GM’s issue a grand “Open Letter” to the industry saying “Boo-hoo, lookie here, Microsoft voted against ODF, sob, waah, waah”. The Committee Draft was approved and by wide margins. Now we move on.

[Note that the minutes are listing the vote as a 9-2-2 result. This is based on rechecking the attendance records of members to see who had voting rights at the time of the vote. This knocked off one of the Yes votes.]

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2159 Anonymous Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:03:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2159 re- the 10-2-2 vote. Who were the abstain/No votes from. Is this an indicator of things to come ie. payback time ?<br/><br/>Gopal re- the 10-2-2 vote. Who were the abstain/No votes from. Is this an indicator of things to come ie. payback time ?

Gopal

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2158 Rob Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:10:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2158 @Alex,<br/><br/>That's one of the tasks that we still need to complete, verifying the names, titles and affiliations of TC members and contributors to the standard. This includes the Appendix C "Acknowledgments" as well as the title page. This is one of the action items assigned to me, so you can be sure that my information will be correct in the final version. @Alex,

That’s one of the tasks that we still need to complete, verifying the names, titles and affiliations of TC members and contributors to the standard. This includes the Appendix C “Acknowledgments” as well as the title page. This is one of the action items assigned to me, so you can be sure that my information will be correct in the final version.

]]> By: Alex http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2157 Alex Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:55:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2157 @Rob<br/><br/>Congratulations to the TC on reaching this waypoint!<br/><br/>One thing that flies off the cover page of the .ODT is that you, Rob, are not listed as committee chair (at least this is how it appears using OO.o 3.0.0). Is this a document production error or has there been a changing of officers at the TC?<br/><br/><br/>@Bart<br/><br/>I am a lot less comfortable than you that OO.o 3 has elected to save to what it calls "ODF 1.2", and that when a user finds the deeply-buried option to alter this, this is labelled as the "recommended" format!<br/><br/>- Alex. @Rob

Congratulations to the TC on reaching this waypoint!

One thing that flies off the cover page of the .ODT is that you, Rob, are not listed as committee chair (at least this is how it appears using OO.o 3.0.0). Is this a document production error or has there been a changing of officers at the TC?

@Bart

I am a lot less comfortable than you that OO.o 3 has elected to save to what it calls “ODF 1.2″, and that when a user finds the deeply-buried option to alter this, this is labelled as the “recommended” format!

- Alex.

]]> By: Bart Hanssens http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-12-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2156 Bart Hanssens Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:49:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/02/odf-1-2-committee-draft-01.html#comment-2156 Congratulations, nice to see the progress on ODF 1.2 !<br/><br/>Now, about criticizing OOo for using 1.2 :-)<br/><br/>I'm certainly not against the <i>possibility</i> of using a draft version of ODF 1.2 in OOo (or any other implementation, for that matter) per se.<br/><br/>That's actually a huge benefit: it clearly shows the commitment of the OOo developers towards ODF 1.2, and it is a very good test case / proof of concept.<br/><br/>However, saving by <i>default</i> to the not-yet-approved ODF 1.2-draft might not be the best option when promoting the implementation of open standards and offering end users the freedom of (product) choice.<br/><br/>Luckily, it's very easy to change this setting to ODF 1.1 in OOo, so I'm OK with it. Congratulations, nice to see the progress on ODF 1.2 !

Now, about criticizing OOo for using 1.2 :-)

I’m certainly not against the possibility of using a draft version of ODF 1.2 in OOo (or any other implementation, for that matter) per se.

That’s actually a huge benefit: it clearly shows the commitment of the OOo developers towards ODF 1.2, and it is a very good test case / proof of concept.

However, saving by default to the not-yet-approved ODF 1.2-draft might not be the best option when promoting the implementation of open standards and offering end users the freedom of (product) choice.

Luckily, it’s very easy to change this setting to ODF 1.1 in OOo, so I’m OK with it.

]]>