ISO standard ODF and the Open Document Foundation

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    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-its-open-document-formats-turn-for-the-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.
    peterwn, Nov 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    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-its-open-document-formats-turn-for-the-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
    Dave Doe, Nov 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 6, 10:41 pm, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > 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-its-open-document-formats-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.
    peterwn, Nov 6, 2007
    #3
  4. 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."
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 6, 2007
    #4
  5. peterwn

    Jason Rumney Guest

    On 6 Nov, 09:41, Dave Doe <> 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.
    Jason Rumney, Nov 6, 2007
    #5
  6. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?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.
    impossible, Nov 6, 2007
    #6
  7. peterwn

    sam Guest

    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
    sam, Nov 6, 2007
    #7
  8. In message <ei1Yi.171365$Xa3.139485@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:

    > "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> 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/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 7, 2007
    #8
  9. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:fgqvnl$2n4$...
    > In message <ei1Yi.171365$Xa3.139485@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> 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/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?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.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    ..
    impossible, Nov 7, 2007
    #9
  10. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 7, 1:44 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >
    > news:fgqvnl$2n4$...
    >
    >
    >
    > > In message <ei1Yi.171365$Xa3.139485@attbi_s22>, impossible wrote:

    >
    > >> "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >>> 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/catalogue_tc/catalogue_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.
    peterwn, Nov 7, 2007
    #10
  11. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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.
    >


    LOL. This thread, like all others, is about whatever people want to make it
    about. If you don't want discussion, go write something in your diary.
    impossible, Nov 7, 2007
    #11
  12. On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:44:16 +0000, impossible wrote:

    >> 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


    Actually, we were discussing the ISO standards approved file format for
    office productivity software - not "office document formats".


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 7, 2007
    #12
  13. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:44:16 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.


    >
    > Actually, we were discussing the ISO standards approved file format for
    > office productivity software - not "office document formats".
    >
    >


    Like Lawrence, you have a despicable habit of deleting relevant remarks from
    other people's posts. I've restored those deletions here, so now it's clear
    what I said. ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines "an XLM schema for office
    applications" that is "suitable for office documents". Full stop. That's the
    relevant part of the standard's abstract I quoted previously. Your claim
    then that ODF is "the industry wide, world wide, officially approved
    standard for file formats of office productivity software" is completely
    bogus. It is what it is -- **a** standard implemented by applications
    gracing the desktops of 1 in 100 users and recognized as meaningful by even
    fewer.
    impossible, Nov 7, 2007
    #13
  14. On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:39:24 +0000, impossible wrote:

    >> Actually, we were discussing the ISO standards approved file format for
    >> office productivity software - not "office document formats".

    >
    > [snip] ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines "an XLM schema for
    > office applications" that is "suitable for office documents". Full stop.
    > That's the relevant part of the standard's abstract I quoted previously.
    > Your claim then that ODF is "the industry wide, world wide, officially
    > approved standard for file formats of office productivity software" is
    > completely bogus. It is what it is -- **a** standard implemented by
    > applications


    Actually, it is *the* standard for the file formats of office productivity
    software. There is currently no other approved ISO standard for office
    productivity software file formats.

    You've merely quoted the executive summary of the description of the
    organisation of those file formats.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Nov 7, 2007
    #14
  15. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:39:24 +0000, impossible wrote:
    >
    >>> Actually, we were discussing the ISO standards approved file format for
    >>> office productivity software - not "office document formats".

    >>
    >> [snip] ISO/IEC 26300:2006 defines "an XLM schema for
    >> office applications" that is "suitable for office documents". Full stop.
    >> That's the relevant part of the standard's abstract I quoted previously.
    >> Your claim then that ODF is "the industry wide, world wide, officially
    >> approved standard for file formats of office productivity software" is
    >> completely bogus. It is what it is -- **a** standard implemented by
    >> applications gracing the desktops of 1 in 100 users and recognized as
    >> meaningful by even
    >> fewer.

    >
    > Actually, it is *the* standard for the file formats of office productivity
    > software.


    Clearly not. ODF is the OASIS standard, OOXML is the ECMA standard, and CDF
    is the W3C standard. And meanwhile, 9 in 10 documents are produced in doc,
    xls, and ppt format. So there is really **no** effective standard now
    whatsoever.


    > There is currently no other approved ISO standard for office
    > productivity software file formats.
    >


    As if that matters to anyone.
    impossible, Nov 7, 2007
    #15
  16. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 8, 7:36 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message


    >
    > Clearly not. ODF is the OASIS standard, OOXML is the ECMA standard, and CDF
    > is the W3C standard. And meanwhile, 9 in 10 documents are produced in doc,
    > xls, and ppt format. So there is really **no** effective standard now
    > whatsoever.


    The .doc etc formats are de-facto standards at present, and the matter
    of
    documents has not been a burning issue with users in general since
    there
    has been some stability for the last decade. Of course Microsoft just
    wants
    governments, education organisations and corporates to quietly
    transition to
    OOXML so the the average person, the student and the small biz
    operator
    has to outlay significant money merely to keep up to date.

    Anyone who dares question that Windows and Office are the 'natural'
    choices
    for users are regarded as dangerous and seditious, and need to be put
    down
    at all costs, hence the Wintrolls at work here and elsewhere.

    However it is very important for all users to take a keen interest in
    the matter
    of document standards and not be like mushrooms - they thrive if kept
    in the
    dark and are fed lots of bullshit (eg M$ sponsored lop-sided TCO
    studies
    showing it is more economic to keep going the M$ way).

    There is alo the matter of caring for the environment. The aim should
    be
    for PC's to have much longer life cycles than at present. This means
    many
    computers should be having 'second lives' in schools or in the homes
    of the
    not so well off. Vista / OOXML is just not suited to this sort of
    thing - it is too large,
    complicated and unwieldley. These 'second life' computers are ideaf
    for use
    with ODF and to meet general computing needs.


    Oh, by the way, 'Impossible', you can treat this as if I have merely
    written
    this in my diary.
    peterwn, Nov 7, 2007
    #16
  17. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Nov 8, 7:36 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message

    >
    >>
    >> Clearly not. ODF is the OASIS standard, OOXML is the ECMA standard, and
    >> CDF
    >> is the W3C standard. And meanwhile, 9 in 10 documents are produced in
    >> doc,
    >> xls, and ppt format. So there is really **no** effective standard now
    >> whatsoever.

    >
    > The .doc etc formats are de-facto standards at present, and the matter
    > of
    > documents has not been a burning issue with users in general since
    > there
    > has been some stability for the last decade. Of course Microsoft just
    > wants
    > governments, education organisations and corporates to quietly
    > transition to
    > OOXML so the the average person, the student and the small biz
    > operator
    > has to outlay significant money merely to keep up to date.
    >
    > Anyone who dares question that Windows and Office are the 'natural'
    > choices
    > for users are regarded as dangerous and seditious, and need to be put
    > down
    > at all costs, hence the Wintrolls at work here and elsewhere.
    >


    Nah, you just have to make a decent argument for odf versus all the other
    potential standards. Can you?
    impossible, Nov 7, 2007
    #17
  18. peterwn

    -=rjh=- Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > 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-its-open-document-formats-turn-for-the-fudmeisters/
    >
    > Whoisthis was correct in two regards:
    > 1. Open Document Foundation is most probably run by a couple of guys
    > and a lawyer.


    Bullshit. Whoisthis presented a link with an inane comment then did not
    particpate in the thread. He was trolling, suckers.

    He was trying to present the ODF as if it was responsible for the entire
    Open Document Format effort, and that their ceasing to participate would
    inevitably lead to the demise of the format.

    In my post, I pointed out who the ODF were, and that their antics were
    irrelevant.

    Whoisthis either didn't have a clue or was deliberately winding us up.

    >
    > 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.
    >


    I don't see how you've clarified anything. Introducing talk about
    forking and Linux clarifies nothing, and isn't relevant to ODF.

    BTW and AFAIK, Hurd isn't parallel to Linux, it predated it by
    considerable years. The Linux kernel was able to be used with some of
    the work previously done on Hurd and elsewhere and get out the gate
    first as a result.
    -=rjh=-, Nov 16, 2007
    #18
  19. In article <473e0097$>, -=rjh=- <> wrote:
    >peterwn wrote:
    >> Micro$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-its-open-document-formats-turn-for-the-fudme
    >isters/
    >>
    >> Whoisthis was correct in two regards:
    >> 1. Open Document Foundation is most probably run by a couple of guys
    >> and a lawyer.

    >
    >Bullshit. Whoisthis presented a link with an inane comment then did not
    >particpate in the thread. He was trolling, suckers.
    >
    >He was trying to present the ODF as if it was responsible for the entire
    >Open Document Format effort, and that their ceasing to participate would
    >inevitably lead to the demise of the format.
    >
    >In my post, I pointed out who the ODF were, and that their antics were
    >irrelevant.
    >
    >Whoisthis either didn't have a clue or was deliberately winding us up.


    Could it be e) all of the above ? :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 19, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    486
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    575
  3. thingy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    321
    Peter
    Nov 1, 2005
  4. impossible

    Microsoft open document format wins at ISO

    impossible, Apr 1, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    432
    Bruce Sinclair
    Apr 7, 2008
  5. impossible
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    315
    peterwn
    Apr 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page