• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

An Antic Disposition

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Writings
  • Links
You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for April 2010

Archives for April 2010

The Naming of Standards

2010/04/28 By Rob 2 Comments

I am occasionally asked, what is the correct name of the ODF standard?  Is it “OpenDocument Format”?  Or is it “Open Document Format”, with a space between “Open” and “Document”?

I’d like (hopefully) to clear this up.

The naming decision happened back in 2004.  At that point Sun had contributed their specification for the OpenOffice XML format to OASIS,  and a new TC was using that specification as the basis for developing a new standard.  But what should the new standard be called?

Some wanted it to be called “OfficeDocument”, emphasizing its primary scope of use.  Others wanted to call it “OpenDocument”, making its openness (a new thing in the office-document world at that time) more central, and acknowledging that its applicability was for more than just office editors.

So, as only a committee can do, a compromise was forged incorporated both ideas.  The resulting official name of the standard became, “OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)”.

If you are citing the standard for official reasons, that is the name to use.  (Or the ISO name which is even longer).  But clearly, that name is too long for casual use, or even use in technical writing,  so we need a shorter, more convenient name.  I’ll note the terms I’ve seen used, as well as my personal thoughts on whether they are  a good idea:

  • ODF — This is what you’ll hear it called in OASIS, where the term is unambiguous.  However, in other circles ODF can mean other things, from “Organ Donation Foundation” to “Oregon Department of Forestry”.  So, in writing, even on this blog, I will typically use a longer form first, and only then use the acronym.  This is also more search-engine friendly.
  • Open Document Format — This is certainly always correct and is my preferred longer form.
  • OpenDocument — This is also correct, the short name explicitly given in the standard.  We use it, for example, in the registered MIME content types for ODF.  I tend to see this more used to refer to the technology rather than the format itself.  So, “OpenDocument applications” or “OpenDocument toolkits”.  But if I had omnipotent powers, I’d eliminate this short name and make the short name official “ODF”.
  • OpenDocument Format — This is less correct, using the official short name and then appending a proper case “Format” after it.  It is hard to justify, but it does occur in many places.
  • OpenDoc — This is absolutely wrong.  OpenDoc is the name of an unrelated technology Apple developed in the 1990s.

When the IBM Terminology group contacted me on this (and yes we apparently have such a group) my advice to them — and I commend  the same to you — is:

  1. When citing the standard, use the official name “OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.1”.
  2. When referring to the format in general, call it “Open Document Format”  at its first use in a document, and then feel free to abbreviate it as “ODF”.

There are those who say that standards also have a THIRD NAME, a secret name that they use only for themselves.  What deep and inscrutable name ODF calls itself is a matter of some speculation.

  • Tweet

Filed Under: ODF

IBM Software Consumability Survey

2010/04/28 By Rob Leave a Comment

We (IBM’s Software Group) are doing a survey of user perceptions of the “consumability” of our products.  “What is consumability?” you might well ask.  It is a new word for an old idea.  It describes the end-to-end customer experience, the consistency and cohesion of our products and solutions, from acquisition, prototyping, through integration, deployment, maintenance and upgrade.  The idea is ancient.  Vitruvius, in De Architectura wrote of Firmess, Commodity and Delight (firmitas, utilitas and venustas) as the ideals of a building.  Commodity here used in the sense of commodius or serviceable, convenient, well-adapted to its purpose, etc.  I think that “consumability” is the modern buzzword for that ancient architectural virtue.

But I digress.

If you use IBM products, and can spare 20-30 minutes to take an online survey you first-hand experiences with software consumability, then I encourage you to head over to this page, and share your thoughts.  The survey is available in 10 languages (English, Brazilian Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Korean, Japanese, German, Spanish, French, and Italian).

I’m told that earlier forms of this survey resulted in 1400 product suggestions, 900 of which are reflected in currently shipping products.  So this is good way to get your opinion heard and acted on.

Thanks!

  • Tweet

Filed Under: IBM

Weekly Links #7

2010/04/24 By Rob Leave a Comment

  • lpOD — languages & platforms OpenDocument – lpOD 0.9.1 “Granada” is released – View

    “lpOD 0.9.1 “Granada” is released

    lpOD 0.9.1 has just been released, together with its documentation. You can download lpOD 0.9.1 here.”

    tags: ODF

  • Workshop on Document Freedom – Presentations | Open Technologies Resource Center

    “OTRC organized one day workshop regarding Free Document Formats on Document Freedom Day (31st March, 2010). The program targeted IT focal persons from different ministries of Nepal Government and other Open Document enthusiasts.

    The following presentations were delivered during the event.

    1. Welcome and Introduction – Jwalanta Shestha
    2. FOSS in Nepal and Open Documents – Subir Pradhanang
    3. Why Document Freedom – Laxmi Khatiwads
    4. Open Document: The Essence – Abhishek Singh
    5. Role of Document Freedom in eGovernance – Bibek Paudel
    6. Nirvikalpa CD Demo – Suraj Sapkota”

    tags: ODF, DFD

  • jOpenDocument Homepage

    “Version 1.2 beta 3, April 13, 2010 jOpenDocument-1.2b3-jdk5.jar (Java 5)”

    tags: ODF

  • EU eGovernment push ‘threatens Microsoft supremacy’ | EurActiv

    “EU telecoms ministers took an important step towards diluting the market dominance of Microsoft’s Office software on Monday (19 April) when they agreed to roll out online services using more interoperable document formats, according to Brussels-based competition lawyers.”

    tags: ODF

  • Notes from ODF Plugfest in Granada, Day One

    “The ODF Plugfest is a Conference whose goal is to to achieve the maximum interoperability between competing applications, platforms and technologies in the area of digital document sharing, and to promote the OpenDocument format (ODF). This page, as the others that will follow on this website, is a short technical summary, primarily aimed at developers, of what happened during the first day of the conference.”

    tags: ODF

  • Final Notes from the ODF Plugfest in Granada
  • “The second day of the Plugfest followed the same general scheme of the first one (covered in a separated page): a non-technical introduction followed by lots of hacking, feature analysis and product anticipations.”

    tags: ODF

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

  • Tweet

Filed Under: Weekly Links

Why I like Oracle’s $90 ODF Plugin

2010/04/21 By Rob 13 Comments

There has been a flurry of news articles about Oracle’s price change on their (formerly Sun’s) ODF Plugin for MS Office.  What was previously free (as in beer), at least for individual use, is now sold for $90 and with a minimum quantity of 100.  The broad coverage (ZDNet, BusinessWeek, CNET,  NBC, IDG, etc.)  of this minor story suggests someone was shopping this story around.  I wonder who?

At the risk of pouring oil on the fire, let me say that I think this is an exciting development for ODF.  We have three solutions for providing ODF support in MS Office:

  1. Oracle’s Plugin
  2. CleverAge Add-in
  3. Microsoft’s native ODF support

These three solutions have always varied in terms of quality of conversion, versions of MS Office supported, versions of ODF supported, level of integration into MS Office, etc.  And now they vary based on price.  This is a good thing.  It is called “competition”.  I like it.

Although I personally think that Oracle has set the price too high, I realize that we have a market to sort these things out.  If they act rationally (and I assume they will) they’ll charge an amount that maximizes their return.  If they are not already at a profit-maximizing price point, they will adjust.  That is how prices are set in a free market.   But if Oracle can really get $90 per copy, with a minimum quantity of 100, then all the power to them.  I just hope that some of that money gets plowed back into their development of this and other ODF-related tools.  That is how we grow stronger and more powerful ODF tools.  Someone needs the impetus to make that investment.  If the profit motive drives investment in ODF,  then Praise be to Mammon!  And remember, if Oracle’s Plugin gets more people to use ODF, then that is a larger audience for your open source ODF tool.  This is a good thing.  The important thing is we’re growing the number of people using ODF.

We should want companies to invest in ODF tools.  We should want the demand for ODF to be such that ODF-based goods and services have value, can be sold based on that value, and that there is competition again in the market, something we have not seen in this area in many years.

2009-04-23 — Some further thoughts

It is probably worth reflecting why the Sun Plugin was necessary in the first place.  If Microsoft Office supported ODF fully, in a well-integrated and interperable fashion, then surely no ODF Plugin would be necessary. You would gain your ODF support simply by purchasing your MS Office license.  In effect, you are already paying for ODF support (along with all other Office features) when you purchase MS Office. If you are buying Oracle’s $90 Plugin, remember that you are essentially paying for ODF support twice: once to Microsoft and once to Oracle.

If I were paying twice for the same feature, I’d be upset as well.  But is the solution really for Oracle to continue subsidizing MS Office users by giving away their Plugin for free?  Or maybe Microsoft customers should ask their vendor why their Office ODF support is not adequate?  Ideally there would be no need for a Plugin because the out-of-the-box ODF support would meet customer requirements.  I’m sure Microsoft, like any other vendor, would value such feedback from their customers.   But to me it seems perverse to blame Oracle for no longer subsidizing their competitor’s product.

  • Tweet

Filed Under: ODF

Yet Another Browser Choice Fail

2010/04/18 By Rob 14 Comments

A few weeks ago I wrote about Microsoft’s “browser choice” ballot page in Europe, which in its debut used a flawed algorithm when attempting to perform a “random shuffle” of the browser choices, a feature specifically called for in their agreement with the EU.  This bug was fixed soon after it was reported.  But I recently received an email from a correspondent going by the name “Skoon” who reported a more serious bug, but one that is seen only in the Polish-language translation of the ballot choice screen.

You can go directly to this version of the page via this URL www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_pl.htm.  Try loading it a few times.  Does it look random to you?  I tried it in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome and Opera and get the same result each time.  The order is unchanging, with Internet Explorer always first, followed always by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari, in that order.  There is no shuffling going on at all.

I won’t bore you with the details of why this is so.  Let’s just say that this is a JavaScript error involving a failure to properly escape embedded quotations in one of the browser descriptions.  Because of the error, the script aborts and the randomization routine is never called.

See if you can find the bug.  Hint: turn on your JavaScript error checking in your browser (e.g., Tools\Error Console in Firefox) and the error will pop out immediately:

If you can detect this error in 30 seconds by enabling Internet Explorer’s own JavaScript error detection facility — and I believe you can — then we can assume that anyone could have done this, even Microsoft.  The odd thing is that evidently no one at Microsoft bothered to check this page for JavaScript errors, or even check the page to see if it actually worked.  We’re not talking about sophisticated statistical testing here.  Any QA on the page, any at all, would have found this error.

  • Tweet

Filed Under: Microsoft

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Copyright © 2006-2023 Rob Weir · Site Policies

 

Loading Comments...