Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > ISO standard ODF and the Open Document Foundation

Reply
Thread Tools

ISO standard ODF and the Open Document Foundation

 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
Micro$oft troll Whoisthis had something to say on this recently
(headed ODF Dead?).

Here is the background to the his previous posting:
http://hackfud.net/2007/11/06/now-it...e-fudmeisters/

Whoisthis was correct in two regards:
1. Open Document Foundation is most probably run by a couple of guys
and a lawyer.

2. ODF (Open Document Foundation) is indeed dead.

Now ODF (meaning the ISO standard document formats) are alive and
kicking, but the Foundation having parted company has fallen by the
wayside. ODF documents and the Foundation are two completely
different things.

It is a fact of life in Open Source that differences will be aired
publically and occasionally 'forks' will occur (just as Vista is a not
very effective fork of XP). One day someone might just successfully
'fork' the Linux kernel and leave Linus by the roadside, although it
is extremely unlikely to happen any time soon (and parallel projects
like 'Hurd' have not really progressed.

I am delighted to clarify the situation.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Micro$oft troll Whoisthis had something to say on this recently
> (headed ODF Dead?).
>
> Here is the background to the his previous posting:
> http://hackfud.net/2007/11/06/now-it...e-fudmeisters/
>
> Whoisthis was correct in two regards:
> 1. Open Document Foundation is most probably run by a couple of guys
> and a lawyer.
>
> 2. ODF (Open Document Foundation) is indeed dead.
>
> Now ODF (meaning the ISO standard document formats)


No it does not.

There is no such thing as "ISO standard document formats", per se. One
writes a format. One applies for ISO certification. The former, is a
subset, of the latter.

*Anyone* (any company, any individual) can apply and go through ISO
certification for a "procedure" or "method".

Find out what ISO means. PS: it doesn't necessarily count for much
either, let me rephrase, ISO does not necessarily mean a business will
(continue to) operate quality management.

ISO has/is becoming something many businesses achieve to be in a more
competitive position - ie "get signed off" with little regard to the
intent of ISO.

Please *forget* ISO - it's a red herring.

It is unfortunate that a 'standard' is considered more worthy because it
is ISO certified. There are many thousands of such 'standards'
(including documented business procedures and methods) that *could* be
ISO certified, but are not, as the process of obtaining such is
prohibitive for many small businesses.

Get off yer ISO bandwagon.

As for the rest of your crap, it doesn't warrrant commenting on, 'cept
to say you've dribbled a bit.

Get off yer anti-MS bandwagon too. Religious OS zealots are counter
productive full stop.

--
Duncan
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
On Nov 6, 10:41 pm, Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> > Micro$oft troll Whoisthis had something to say on this recently
> > (headed ODF Dead?).

>
> > Here is the background to the his previous posting:
> >http://hackfud.net/2007/11/06/now-it...mats-turn-for-...

>
> > Whoisthis was correct in two regards:
> > 1. Open Document Foundation is most probably run by a couple of guys
> > and a lawyer.

>
> > 2. ODF (Open Document Foundation) is indeed dead.

>
> > Now ODF (meaning the ISO standard document formats)

>
> No it does not.
>
> There is no such thing as "ISO standard document formats", per se. One
> writes a format. One applies for ISO certification. The former, is a
> subset, of the latter.


And ODF is an ISO standard - no. 26300:32006 - that is what I mwan by
'ISO standard document format'.

You are trying to give a FUD message that ODF is not an ISO standard.
>
> *Anyone* (any company, any individual) can apply and go through ISO
> certification for a "procedure" or "method".


And 'anyone' is unlikely on his or her own is likely to gain the
necessary
'traction' for his or her concept to becme a 'standard'. Standards
are
issued following industry and international consensus with NZ
Standards
Association being the local 'agent' in NZ.

Why is it then that Micro$oft has been paying groups in various
countries
to 'stuff' ISO committee ballots to get its OOXML through

>
> Find out what ISO means. PS: it doesn't necessarily count for much
> either, let me rephrase, ISO does not necessarily mean a business will
> (continue to) operate quality management.


This clearly shows you have not got a clue what ISO is about. You
are
getting confused between the development and adoption of standards
and accreditation processes which operate quite independently of
standards organisations (although national standards organisations
may licence the use of symbols where an approved accrediting agency
has 'passed' the product or service).

Any firm can claim that their goods or services comply with
standards. For
consumer goods, evidence of accreditation isgenerally required fors
afety and consumer protection purposes. For non-consumer goods
(eg the sort of equipment Transpower buys) the purchaser will
generally require to see type test results issued by an approved
testing organisation.

>
> ISO has/is becoming something many businesses achieve to be in a more
> competitive position - ie "get signed off" with little regard to the
> intent of ISO.


Only Microsoft with respect to OOXML.

>
> Please *forget* ISO - it's a red herring.
>
> It is unfortunate that a 'standard' is considered more worthy because it
> is ISO certified.


> There are many thousands of such 'standards'
> (including documented business procedures and methods) that *could* be
> ISO certified, but are not, as the process of obtaining such is
> prohibitive for many small businesses.


This is where you do not have a clue about standards. They are not
for
the purposes of a single business, whether that business be Raj's
Dairy
or Microsoft. ISO standards are consensus things across industries
and
nations. Most standards apply to everyday mundane things ranging from
Transpower grid equipment, through to TV's, and down to nuts, bolts,
washers, etc, etc. A company can then manufacture one type or
range of widgets knowing that it is what their customers want.
Customers
can then shop around for goods knowing that the various suppliers
make
physically or functionally equal products.

This is where Microsoft if falling down in trying to get OOXML
adopted
as a standard. Firstly it is effectively being promoted by one
company.
Secondly it is so defective in its present form, it is not fit to be
adopted
as a standard - this is why there are national and international ISO
committees - to provide input to the standards meet ndustry needs and
are suitable for issue as a standard. Thirdly, far from committing
itself to
any OOXML standard, Microsoft has reserved the right to unilaterally
deviate from the standard (thus helping to ensure continuing monopoly
lock-in).

Frankly, the only reaon Microsoft wants OOXML adopted as a standard
is to get past overnment procurement agencies who want goods
and services to comply with standards so there can be contestable
procurement.

>
> Get off yer ISO bandwagon.
>
> As for the rest of your crap, it doesn't warrrant commenting on, 'cept
> to say you've dribbled a bit.


You cannot provide a rational response, so you abuse the writer.

>
> Get off yer anti-MS bandwagon too. Religious OS zealots are counter
> productive full stop.
>


I have news for you, matey. This group is called nz.comp, not
nz.microsoft.comp.

Just remember too, that it was a Microsoft troll who posted
misinformation on this topic a little while back.

So it seems that everyone in the world has to dance the
Microsoft tune or else! To hell with that, you people
can just blow it out your ears.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:41:44 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:

>> Now ODF (meaning the ISO standard document formats)

>
> No it does not.
>
> There is no such thing as "ISO standard document formats", per se.


Incorrect.

ISO/IEC 26300 is the industry wide, world wide, officially approved
standard for file formats of office productivity software.

It has been implemented by many office productivity suites, including
OpenOffice.org, Koffice, and Corel.


> One writes a format. One applies for ISO certification. The former, is
> a subset, of the latter.


ISO "certification" is not simply rubber stamping what someone else does.
It involves investigation, examination, correction, modification of the
proposal until a clear majority of all interested parties agree on the
proposal.

All national standards bodies throughout the world can, if they so choose,
participate in the creation of duly considered and agreed standards for
use by multiple vendors and agencies world wide.


> *Anyone* (any company, any individual) can apply and go through ISO
> certification for a "procedure" or "method".


I don't think you understand the whole purpose of having standards.

It is about interoperability. About enabling all implementations of that
standard to work with all other implementations of the same standard.


> Find out what ISO means.


See above.


> PS: it doesn't necessarily count for much
> either, let me rephrase, ISO does not necessarily mean a business will
> (continue to) operate quality management.


It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not a business chooses to
implement any form of quality management.


> ISO has/is becoming something many businesses achieve to be in a more
> competitive position - ie "get signed off" with little regard to the
> intent of ISO.


Again, you have no idea what using a standard means.


> Please *forget* ISO - it's a red herring.


If the industry-wide use of a non-vendor-specific interoperability format
is such a "red herring" then why have so many organisations implemented
that file format; and why is Micro$oft so keenly intent on killing the ODF
format, and why also is Micro$oft so keenly intent on pushing its own
proposed standard through the fast track process towards publication as a
standard?


> It is unfortunate that a 'standard' is considered more worthy because it
> is ISO certified. There are many thousands of such 'standards'
> (including documented business procedures and methods) that *could* be
> ISO certified, but are not, as the process of obtaining such is
> prohibitive for many small businesses.


Now, *that* truly is a red herring.


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jason Rumney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
On 6 Nov, 09:41, Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> There is no such thing as "ISO standard document formats", per se. One
> writes a format. One applies for ISO certification. The former, is a
> subset, of the latter.


> Find out what ISO means. PS: it doesn't necessarily count for much
> either, let me rephrase, ISO does not necessarily mean a business will
> (continue to) operate quality management.


You seem to be confusing ISO standards here with certification of
compliance with the ISO-9000 series of standards. They are completely
different things. The ISO-9000 series of standards deal with
documenting quality processes and is a very small part of what ISO is
about.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
"Jonathan Walker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:41:44 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:
>
>>> Now ODF (meaning the ISO standard document formats)

>>
>> No it does not.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "ISO standard document formats", per se.

>
> Incorrect.
>
> ISO/IEC 26300 is the industry wide, world wide, officially approved
> standard for file formats of office productivity software.
>


Dead wrong. "ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines an XML schema for office
applications and its semantics. The schema is suitable for office documents,
including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical documents like
drawings or presentations, but is not restricted to these kinds of
documents."

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...csnumber=43485

That's a far cry from referring to ODF as "the industry wide, world wide,
officially approved standard for file formats". ISO would never make such a
claim about any of its published standards, and neither should you.

> It has been implemented by many office productivity suites, including
> OpenOffice.org, Koffice, and Corel.
>


Yes, accounting then for 3-4% of all users, most of those being Corel
WordPerfect users who have never heard of, much less taken any interest in,
odf.

>
>> One writes a format. One applies for ISO certification. The former, is
>> a subset, of the latter.

>
> ISO "certification" is not simply rubber stamping what someone else does.
> It involves investigation, examination, correction, modification of the
> proposal until a clear majority of all interested parties agree on the
> proposal.
>


Yes, but ISO judges the "suitability" of a standard only with respect to its
fitness for some intended purpose. It makes no judgment whatsoever as to
whether or not the product or service resulting from adherence to a given
standard is "good" or "bad" as such, and it certainly does not try to rank
order any of the multiple standards it commonly approves for similar
products and services. A brief tour through ISO's database of standards
attests to that.

> All national standards bodies throughout the world can, if they so choose,
> participate in the creation of duly considered and agreed standards for
> use by multiple vendors and agencies world wide.
>


Only if there's some proposal on the table for them to discuss. Like the ODF
standard authored by the IBM-Sun alliance, or the OOXML standard authored by
Microsoft. Then the standards bodies open their deliberations to input from
all the "interested parties", as you call them, which properly speaking are
simply lobby groups. To imagine that the ISO operates in a political vacuum
is extremely naiive.

>
>> *Anyone* (any company, any individual) can apply and go through ISO
>> certification for a "procedure" or "method".

>
> I don't think you understand the whole purpose of having standards.
>
> It is about interoperability. About enabling all implementations of that
> standard to work with all other implementations of the same standard.
>


Nah, standards are just another form of regulation. Some standards promote
interoperability, but most in fact do not. ODF, for instance, does not
provide for interoperability with legacy MS Office apps, for the simple
reason that IBM and Sun would like to use the "standardisation" mantra to
throttle Microsoft's domination of the desktop software market. OOXML, on
the other hand, makes interoperability with MS Office the centerrpiece of
its design, because Microsoft is determined to maintain its grip on the
desktop market. Something like the Compound Document Format proposed by W3C
then might be understood as a better model, if only because it originates in
a more ecumenical body of developers/users.



 
Reply With Quote
 
sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2007
peterwn wrote:

>
> I have news for you, matey. This group is called nz.comp, not
> nz.microsoft.comp.
>
> Just remember too, that it was a Microsoft troll who posted
> misinformation on this topic a little while back.
>
> So it seems that everyone in the world has to dance the
> Microsoft tune or else! To hell with that, you people
> can just blow it out your ears.
>


crossposting prick

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
In message <ei1Yi.171365$Xa3.139485@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:

> "Jonathan Walker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> ISO/IEC 26300 is the industry wide, world wide, officially approved
>> standard for file formats of office productivity software.
>>

>
> Dead wrong. "ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines an XML schema for office
> applications and its semantics. The schema is suitable for office
> documents, including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical
> documents like drawings or presentations, but is not restricted to these
> kinds of documents."
>
>

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...csnumber=43485
>
> That's a far cry from referring to ODF as "the industry wide, world wide,
> officially approved standard for file formats".


There you go, misrepresenting what Jonathan Walker clearly said: he said it
is an officially-approved standard for "file formats of office productivity
software", not for "file formats" in general. What JW said clearly comes
under the official ISO specification of what 26300:2006 is good
for: "office documents" are the same thing as "file formats of office
productivity software", after all.
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:fgqvnl$2n4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <ei1Yi.171365$Xa3.139485@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Walker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> ISO/IEC 26300 is the industry wide, world wide, officially approved
>>> standard for file formats of office productivity software.
>>>

>>
>> Dead wrong. "ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines an XML schema for office
>> applications and its semantics. The schema is suitable for office
>> documents, including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical
>> documents like drawings or presentations, but is not restricted to these
>> kinds of documents."
>>
>>

> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...csnumber=43485
>>
>> That's a far cry from referring to ODF as "the industry wide, world wide,
>> officially approved standard for file formats". ISO would never make
>> such a
>> claim about any of its published standards, and neither should you.


>
> There you go, misrepresenting what Jonathan Walker clearly said: he said
> it
> is an officially-approved standard for "file formats of office
> productivity
> software", not for "file formats" in general.


I misrepresented nothing -- we were discussing office document formats, and
my remarks were addressed to only that. Indeed, I wouldn't know what file
formats "in general" mean. I quoted from the ISO standard itself --
something Jonathan had neglected to do -- which defines odf as **a**
standard for office documents, not "the" standard. That's the relevant
point.

> What JW said clearly comes
> under the official ISO specification of what 26300:2006 is good
> for: "office documents" are the same thing as "file formats of office
> productivity software", after all.


I've restored what Jonathan and I both actually said below, and so readers
who are interested can judge for themselves. Your habit of trying to hijack
discussions by selectively editing posts is despicable -- I know of no
newgroup where such behavior is tolerated -- and I strongly suggest you
cease and desist.

>>
>>> It has been implemented by many office productivity suites, including
>>> OpenOffice.org, Koffice, and Corel.
>>>

>>
>> Yes, accounting then for 3-4% of all users, most of those being Corel
>> WordPerfect users who have never heard of, much less taken any interest
>> in,
>> odf.
>>
>>>
>>>> One writes a format. One applies for ISO certification. The former,
>>>> is
>>>> a subset, of the latter.
>>>
>>> ISO "certification" is not simply rubber stamping what someone else
>>> does.
>>> It involves investigation, examination, correction, modification of the
>>> proposal until a clear majority of all interested parties agree on the
>>> proposal.
>>>

>>
>> Yes, but ISO judges the "suitability" of a standard only with respect to
>> its
>> fitness for some intended purpose. It makes no judgment whatsoever as to
>> whether or not the product or service resulting from adherence to a given
>> standard is "good" or "bad" as such, and it certainly does not try to
>> rank
>> order any of the multiple standards it commonly approves for similar
>> products and services. A brief tour through ISO's database of standards
>> attests to that.
>>
>>> All national standards bodies throughout the world can, if they so
>>> choose,
>>> participate in the creation of duly considered and agreed standards for
>>> use by multiple vendors and agencies world wide.
>>>

>>
>> Only if there's some proposal on the table for them to discuss. Like the
>> ODF
>> standard authored by the IBM-Sun alliance, or the OOXML standard authored
>> by
>> Microsoft. Then the standards bodies open their deliberations to input
>> from
>> all the "interested parties", as you call them, which properly speaking
>> are
>> simply lobby groups. To imagine that the ISO operates in a political
>> vacuum
>> is extremely naiive.
>>
>>>
>>>> *Anyone* (any company, any individual) can apply and go through ISO
>>>> certification for a "procedure" or "method".
>>>
>>> I don't think you understand the whole purpose of having standards.
>>>
>>> It is about interoperability. About enabling all implementations of that
>>> standard to work with all other implementations of the same standard.
>>>

>>
>> Nah, standards are just another form of regulation. Some standards
>> promote
>> interoperability, but most in fact do not. ODF, for instance, does not
>> provide for interoperability with legacy MS Office apps, for the simple
>> reason that IBM and Sun would like to use the "standardisation" mantra to
>> throttle Microsoft's domination of the desktop software market. OOXML, on
>> the other hand, makes interoperability with MS Office the centerrpiece
>> of
>> its design, because Microsoft is determined to maintain its grip on the
>> desktop market. Something like the Compound Document Format proposed by
>> W3C
>> then might be understood as a better model, if only because it originates
>> in
>> a more ecumenical body of developers/users.
>>
>>
>>

..


 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Nov 7, 1:44 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
>
> news:fgqvnl$2n4$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
> > In message <ei1Yi.171365$Xa3.139485@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:

>
> >> "Jonathan Walker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> >>> ISO/IEC 26300 is the industry wide, world wide, officially approved
> >>> standard for file formats of office productivity software.

>
> >> Dead wrong. "ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines an XML schema for office
> >> applications and its semantics. The schema is suitable for office
> >> documents, including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical
> >> documents like drawings or presentations, but is not restricted to these
> >> kinds of documents."

>
> >http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...ogue_detail.ht...

>
> >> That's a far cry from referring to ODF as "the industry wide, world wide,
> >> officially approved standard for file formats". ISO would never make
> >> such a
> >> claim about any of its published standards, and neither should you.

>
> > There you go, misrepresenting what Jonathan Walker clearly said: he said
> > it
> > is an officially-approved standard for "file formats of office
> > productivity
> > software", not for "file formats" in general.

>
> I misrepresented nothing -- we were discussing office document formats,


Wrong. This thread is discussing the misleading information being
spread
by M$ oriented fudmeisters concerning the ODF (the one for which an
ISO
standard has been issued following global concensus (with the notable
exception of Microsoft who chose not to take part) and a small
irrevelant
organisation called the Open Document Foundation.

This thread is also NOT about the relative merits of the two formats -
ODF and
OOXML. It has merely been noted that the former is a ISO
international
standard whilst the latter, in its present form is in no fit state to
be considered
for an international standard.

If "Impossible" wishes to re-commence a discussion on all the wondrous
things
that OOXML can do (like a document file playing music while it is beng
read),
then he is quite at liberty to start a new thread.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft's Office Open XML now an official ISO standard impossible NZ Computing 5 04-03-2008 04:57 AM
Free tips and tricks for Scripts,HP Open View products, ITIL, ISO 27001, ISO 2000 etc.. ashlyak@gmail.com Computer Support 2 08-08-2007 01:05 AM
ODF Plug-ins and a Microsoft Promise of Cooperation Have A Nice Cup of Tea NZ Computing 0 05-07-2006 05:44 AM



Advertisments