Comments on: The Relevancy of ODF 1.0 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=relevancy-of-odf-10 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: suezz http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2503 suezz Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:42:52 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2503 What is alex brown smoking. Who implements ooxml beside microsoft and that isn't even a full implementation.<br /><br />There are tons of applications that implement ODF (all versions). <br /><br />Also since microsoft lost the i4i patent case I would assume their standards gets withdrawn. What is alex brown smoking. Who implements ooxml beside microsoft and that isn't even a full implementation.

There are tons of applications that implement ODF (all versions).

Also since microsoft lost the i4i patent case I would assume their standards gets withdrawn.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2502 Anonymous Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:14:14 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2502 Isn't it OOXML that has no implementations? Why are we maintaining a standard that no one, not even it's drafter, are using? <br /><br />It sure looks to me like the ISO or at least SC34, have become an arm of Microsoft. <br /><br />Can we trust anything coming out of ISO? I don't see how at this point. Isn't it OOXML that has no implementations? Why are we maintaining a standard that no one, not even it's drafter, are using?

It sure looks to me like the ISO or at least SC34, have become an arm of Microsoft.

Can we trust anything coming out of ISO? I don't see how at this point.

]]> By: Stephan Beal http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2501 Stephan Beal Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:57:37 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2501 "Ironically, by questioning the relevancy of ODF 1.0, they will cause many more to question the relevancy of SC34."<br /><br />Since the ISO scandal where OOXML was baptized (after which many started referring to ISO as "I Sold Out"), many in the IT industry have already questioned the role, relevance, and judgement of ISO. If ODF 1.0 really is deep-sixed at the insistence of representatives from a small handful of organizations (MS and their lackies), i cannot imagine how anyone _not_ of MS could continue to support ISO. Such an organization serves only the needs of the few, and that's not ISO's purpose.<br /><br />i work primarily in the banking and insurance industries in Germany, where document retention rules require that we keep data for many years. The systems for reading the data have to be re-creatable during that time. If ODF 1.0 is sunk now, in 20 years, when some random lawsuit requires that a bank fish out old records, that bank will be unable to comply and will, in the legal sense of the word, be screwed. And the sad part is, it would be exactly what MS wanted, and what every sensible person knew would (but shouldn't) happen.<br /><br />MS has a history of obsoleting data formats to keep their products selling. There is NO reason in the world why WORLDWIDE-STANDARD formats have to follow that same path. "Ironically, by questioning the relevancy of ODF 1.0, they will cause many more to question the relevancy of SC34."

Since the ISO scandal where OOXML was baptized (after which many started referring to ISO as "I Sold Out"), many in the IT industry have already questioned the role, relevance, and judgement of ISO. If ODF 1.0 really is deep-sixed at the insistence of representatives from a small handful of organizations (MS and their lackies), i cannot imagine how anyone _not_ of MS could continue to support ISO. Such an organization serves only the needs of the few, and that's not ISO's purpose.

i work primarily in the banking and insurance industries in Germany, where document retention rules require that we keep data for many years. The systems for reading the data have to be re-creatable during that time. If ODF 1.0 is sunk now, in 20 years, when some random lawsuit requires that a bank fish out old records, that bank will be unable to comply and will, in the legal sense of the word, be screwed. And the sad part is, it would be exactly what MS wanted, and what every sensible person knew would (but shouldn't) happen.

MS has a history of obsoleting data formats to keep their products selling. There is NO reason in the world why WORLDWIDE-STANDARD formats have to follow that same path.

]]> By: Ronald Devins http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2499 Ronald Devins Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:35:15 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2499 <i>"Ironically, by questioning the relevancy of ODF 1.0, they will cause many more to question the relevancy of SC34."</i><br /><br />Actually, there's nothing ironic about it. It's what Microsoft <b>wants</b>. It's a lot of work to document OOXML and even their obfuscated efforts are better than nothing for competitors. <br /><br />If both ODF and OOXML de jure standards are junked, all that's left are defacto standards, namely OOXML and DOC from Microsoft. "Ironically, by questioning the relevancy of ODF 1.0, they will cause many more to question the relevancy of SC34."

Actually, there's nothing ironic about it. It's what Microsoft wants. It's a lot of work to document OOXML and even their obfuscated efforts are better than nothing for competitors.

If both ODF and OOXML de jure standards are junked, all that's left are defacto standards, namely OOXML and DOC from Microsoft.

]]> By: The Mad Hatter http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2496 The Mad Hatter Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:16:12 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2496 And I think that this is the point. Withdraw ODF 1.0, and now the dates change, because ODF 1.1 was ratified at a later date. Do the same to ODF 1.1, and then Microsoft XML is an older standard.<br /><br />I've seen this sort of game played before. It all comes down to money. And I think that this is the point. Withdraw ODF 1.0, and now the dates change, because ODF 1.1 was ratified at a later date. Do the same to ODF 1.1, and then Microsoft XML is an older standard.

I've seen this sort of game played before. It all comes down to money.

]]> By: Rob Weir http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2495 Rob Weir Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:03:50 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2495 @Sinleeh,<br /><br />Think of it this way:<br /><br />"Stabilized" (or "Stabilised") means "No longer undergoing maintenance".<br /><br />"Withdrawn" means "No longer an International Standard".<br /><br />-Rob @Sinleeh,

Think of it this way:

"Stabilized" (or "Stabilised") means "No longer undergoing maintenance".

"Withdrawn" means "No longer an International Standard".

-Rob

]]> By: sinleeh http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2494 sinleeh Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:59:16 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2494 Rob,<br /><br />I must admit I am always confused by the terminology used by Standard Bodies, may it be ISO or W3C.<br /><br />I thought that if a standard is said to be withdrawn, it means all revisions, may it be 1.0, 0.5 or 999.9, are withdrawn.<br /><br />It appears, however, that in this case "withdrawn" simply means a particular revision is withdrawn, not the whole thing.<br /><br />Quite frankly, I do not any see the reason to "withdraw" 1.0 because one has 1.2. May be a note placed against it saying that a newer standard is available and you are encouraged to use 1.2 instead. 10 years down the line, if I have a document written in 1.0, I still have to dig out 1.0 and 1.2 is not going to be useful.<br /><br />Does "withdrawn" means "no longer maintained"?<br /><br />I am sure we are seeing some political reason for wanting 1.0 withdrawn. Especially for the PR spin. Rob,

I must admit I am always confused by the terminology used by Standard Bodies, may it be ISO or W3C.

I thought that if a standard is said to be withdrawn, it means all revisions, may it be 1.0, 0.5 or 999.9, are withdrawn.

It appears, however, that in this case "withdrawn" simply means a particular revision is withdrawn, not the whole thing.

Quite frankly, I do not any see the reason to "withdraw" 1.0 because one has 1.2. May be a note placed against it saying that a newer standard is available and you are encouraged to use 1.2 instead. 10 years down the line, if I have a document written in 1.0, I still have to dig out 1.0 and 1.2 is not going to be useful.

Does "withdrawn" means "no longer maintained"?

I am sure we are seeing some political reason for wanting 1.0 withdrawn. Especially for the PR spin.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2493 Anonymous Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:37:27 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2493 I do think the persons that suggest this in ISO have a very good understanding of the nature of things. They are loosing so they need to think outside the box.<br /><br />Since it is quite clear that OOXML is in danger of being pulled back because not even Microsoft will make a strict compliant version they desperately need to spin the tale that ODF is equally bad. <br /><br />Only if they spread the FUD that says ODF is flawed and impossible to implement can they hope to escape the public backlash when OOXML get the treatment it deserves. I do think the persons that suggest this in ISO have a very good understanding of the nature of things. They are loosing so they need to think outside the box.

Since it is quite clear that OOXML is in danger of being pulled back because not even Microsoft will make a strict compliant version they desperately need to spin the tale that ODF is equally bad.

Only if they spread the FUD that says ODF is flawed and impossible to implement can they hope to escape the public backlash when OOXML get the treatment it deserves.

]]> By: zaine_ridling http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html#comment-2492 zaine_ridling Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:02:24 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/the-relevancy-of-odf-1-0.html#comment-2492 Rob, since MS Office 2003 users are locked out of their own IRM/DRM documents, it only makes sense that Microsoft doesn't want ODF users to enjoy their more efficient format! Tell me you couldn't predict this move by now. Rob, since MS Office 2003 users are locked out of their own IRM/DRM documents, it only makes sense that Microsoft doesn't want ODF users to enjoy their more efficient format! Tell me you couldn't predict this move by now.

]]>