{"id":969,"date":"2010-04-28T15:12:02","date_gmt":"2010-04-28T19:12:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/2d823b65bb.nxcli.io\/?p=969"},"modified":"2010-07-03T11:56:58","modified_gmt":"2010-07-03T15:56:58","slug":"naming-of-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/2010\/04\/naming-of-standards.html","title":{"rendered":"The Naming of Standards"},"content":{"rendered":"

I am occasionally asked, what is the correct name of the ODF standard<\/a>?\u00a0 Is it “OpenDocument Format”?\u00a0 Or is it “Open Document Format”, with a space between “Open” and “Document”?<\/p>\n

I’d like (hopefully) to clear this up.<\/p>\n

The naming decision happened back in 2004.\u00a0 At that point Sun had contributed their specification for the OpenOffice XML format to OASIS,\u00a0 and a new TC was using that specification as the basis for developing a new standard.\u00a0 But what should the new standard be called?<\/p>\n

Some wanted it to be called “OfficeDocument”, emphasizing its primary scope of use.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

So, as only a committee can do, a compromise was forged incorporated both ideas.\u00a0 The resulting official name<\/a> of the standard became, “OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)”.<\/p>\n

If you are citing the standard for official reasons, that is the name to use.\u00a0 (Or the ISO name which is even longer).\u00a0 But clearly, that name is too long for casual use, or even use in technical writing,\u00a0 so we need a shorter, more convenient name.\u00a0 I’ll note the terms I’ve seen used, as well as my personal thoughts on whether they are\u00a0 a good idea:<\/p>\n