Comments on: ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=odf-1-2-part-1-public-review 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: ODF 1.2 Begins Final 60-day Public Review http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-3398 ODF 1.2 Begins Final 60-day Public Review Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:46:42 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-3398 [...] Part 1 specifies the core schema, and was send out for public review in January. [...] [...] Part 1 specifies the core schema, and was send out for public review in January. [...]

]]> By: Nomen Nescio http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-2968 Nomen Nescio Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:37:58 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-2968 If one follows the precept of be liberal in what you accept, but be strict in what you offer, ODF should mandate that for interoperability, inserted objects must be in open formats, that is, a document with non-open format objects does not confirm to the ODF specification. Conversion routines for importing documents from other formats then would have to transcode, but at least you'd end up with something guaranteed readable. Of course, if you play a long game, patents on other formats will eventually expire, so, so long as somebody remembers how to decode the proprietary formats, it may not be an issue for archived documents. If one follows the precept of be liberal in what you accept, but be strict in what you offer, ODF should mandate that for interoperability, inserted objects must be in open formats, that is, a document with non-open format objects does not confirm to the ODF specification. Conversion routines for importing documents from other formats then would have to transcode, but at least you’d end up with something guaranteed readable. Of course, if you play a long game, patents on other formats will eventually expire, so, so long as somebody remembers how to decode the proprietary formats, it may not be an issue for archived documents.

]]> By: dsfgdsg http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-2965 dsfgdsg Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:17:20 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-2965 Chromium does NOT support h264 native. Chromium does NOT support h264 native.

]]> By: Matthew Raymond http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-2962 Matthew Raymond Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:11:05 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-2962 The whole HTML5 codex fiasco is largely the result of major companies with preexisting investments in audio and video codices preserving their investments: Microsoft, Apple, Nokia (because of decoding hardware) , and to a lesser extent Google (because of their use of H264 on YouTube). In the wild, Safari and Chrome (closed source) support h264, but Chrome (and Chromium), Opera and Firefox all support Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. Considering the fact that h264 has patents that last until 2028, I'm not sure how much traction it will have in the marketplace unless Google continues to use it for YouTube. However, it should be noted that there is some suggestion that Google might open source VP8 and use it with YouTube at some point in the future, which is supposedly better than Ogg Theora, so the situation is still in flux. The whole HTML5 codex fiasco is largely the result of major companies with preexisting investments in audio and video codices preserving their investments: Microsoft, Apple, Nokia (because of decoding hardware) , and to a lesser extent Google (because of their use of H264 on YouTube). In the wild, Safari and Chrome (closed source) support h264, but Chrome (and Chromium), Opera and Firefox all support Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. Considering the fact that h264 has patents that last until 2028, I’m not sure how much traction it will have in the marketplace unless Google continues to use it for YouTube.

However, it should be noted that there is some suggestion that Google might open source VP8 and use it with YouTube at some point in the future, which is supposedly better than Ogg Theora, so the situation is still in flux.

]]> By: ODF is Winning in Europe; ‘Microsoft Press’ Spreads ODF FUD as OpenOffice.org Passes to Oracle | Boycott Novell http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-2961 ODF is Winning in Europe; ‘Microsoft Press’ Spreads ODF FUD as OpenOffice.org Passes to Oracle | Boycott Novell Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:42:56 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-2961 [...] we noted some days ago in a separate post, ODF 1.2 is under public review; it was passed on after this milestone had been announced by Mary McRae (OASIS). Rob Weir explains: [...] [...] we noted some days ago in a separate post, ODF 1.2 is under public review; it was passed on after this milestone had been announced by Mary McRae (OASIS). Rob Weir explains: [...]

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-2951 Rob Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:51:31 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-2951 ODF has the concept of a sound file that can be played in certain contexts, such as in a presentation. But the current draft does not mandate or prohibit any specific audio format. The range of formats is implementation dependent. I know that MP3 is supported, for example, in OpenOffice. My personal preference would to identify everyplace where we allow an embedding, for image, audio or video, and mandate the support of at least one open format. This would provide a basis for interoperability for users who are targeting interoperability, while allowing users who desire MP3 or other non-open formats to use them as well. However, I note that a similar attempt at mandating embedded media formats failed for the video tag in HTML5. I attempted to get a mandate for open image formats added to OOXML, and failed at that. I assume some of the same commercial interests that prevented those moves would also prevent achievement of consensus of an open embedding mandate in ODF. ODF has the concept of a sound file that can be played in certain contexts, such as in a presentation. But the current draft does not mandate or prohibit any specific audio format. The range of formats is implementation dependent. I know that MP3 is supported, for example, in OpenOffice.

My personal preference would to identify everyplace where we allow an embedding, for image, audio or video, and mandate the support of at least one open format. This would provide a basis for interoperability for users who are targeting interoperability, while allowing users who desire MP3 or other non-open formats to use them as well.

However, I note that a similar attempt at mandating embedded media formats failed for the video tag in HTML5. I attempted to get a mandate for open image formats added to OOXML, and failed at that. I assume some of the same commercial interests that prevented those moves would also prevent achievement of consensus of an open embedding mandate in ODF.

]]> By: minghong http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.html#comment-2950 minghong Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:47:55 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=600#comment-2950 Do you know if ODF1.2 allow the patented MP3 to be included as a file format in a document? Do you know if ODF1.2 allow the patented MP3 to be included as a file format in a document?

]]>