Comments on: Former OpenDocument advocates bolt for W3C standard

The document format sagas continue as ODF gets competition from the W3C's Compound Document Formats.

[umbrae]

ODF's problem?

OpenOffice can open MS Office Documents. Is that a problem of the format, or MS stubbornness in not supporting ODF?

A standard has to be accepted to be interchangeable, which means MS has to provide the functionality to recognize and open ODF documents. The W3C and CDF will have the same problem if Microsoft ignores them the same way they ignored ODF.

[deadveggie]

ODF's Problem?

The only reason OpenOffice supported MS Office Documents is the fact that MS Office has 90% of the install base. OpenOffice would have been an immediate failure without supporting it. OpenOffice cannot open all MS Office documents correctly. It messes up a lot of them because it doesn't fully support everything that office can do. ODF is too much geared to the way OpenOffice works. Maybe someone should step back and come up with a good format, without baseing it off what one tool does compared to another. That has always been the problem I had with ODF(and Open XML as well). Come up with a good standard without gearing it towards one tool or another and I think you will get a consenses.

[alegr]

ODF's problem

If you read the article with attention, it says that the problem is that ODF doesn't support all formatting options of MS format, thus MS Office documents cannot be saved as ODF without loss of some formatting.

[kynada]

Claims stretching credibility

According to wikipedia, the following products (many of which are web-based) currently support the ODF standard:

* Abiword 2.4 (reading from 2.4, import and export from 2.4.2)
* ajaxWrite, a web-based word processor, can read/write OpenDocument word processing (ODT) format
* Coventi Pages, a web-based word processor and collaborative document review utility
* Google Docs, a web-based word processor and spreadsheet application derived from the application Writely.
* IBM Lotus Symphony Documents 3.0 (OpenOffice.org 1.0 derivate)
* Ichitaro (Japanese), read/write support via plug-in from version 2006, full built-in support from 2007
* KWord 1.4+ (full native support since 1.5)
* Microsoft Word (no native support, but available through free open-source plugin [1])
* OpenOffice.org Writer (full support from 2.0, import-only in 1.1.5)
o NeoOffice 2.0 Writer (OpenOffice.org 2.0.3 derivate)
o NextOffice 9.0 Writer (OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 derivate)
o Sauver.Office 2.2 Writer (OpenOffice.org derivate)
o StarOffice 8 Writer (OpenOffice.org 2.0 derivate)
* TextEdit, (In the Mac OS X Leopard Developers Preview) can read/write ODT format
* TextMaker 2006 (previously import only; export available starting with revision 467)
* Zoho Writer, an online word processor, can read/write ODT format

Data management

* eLawOffice.it 0.9.6.4, Law Firms cross-platform Java GPL application (client-server). It uses opendocument as templates to generate opendocument documents with data merged from application database such as customer name, address etc [2]
* phpMyAdmin 2.9.0+ - database manager, exports to ODT

Document management:

* Symfoni Software 'eOffice' and 'Document manager' from Symfoni Software ([3]) supports direct integration from Lotus Notes to odf. Symfoni Document Manager is a general-purpose document management solution with possibility for activity follow-up. The system is suited for all kinds of work processes where there is a need to gather, organise and share information, e.g. example budget processes, board meetings, supplier contracting, purchasing, projects and strategy processes. Symfoni Document Manager is also well suited as an archive for departments, groups and private.
* Aukyla Document Management System 2.2, lightweight web-based document management system. Has viewers and indexing support for OpenDocument Text and to a limited extent OpenDocument Spreadsheet. [4]
* O3Spaces Workplace 2.1, ODF-centric team collaboration environment, with tight integration in the OpenOffice.org & StarOffice Office suites. A basic content service and end-user ready lightweight web-based document management system. Includes full-text ODF & PDF indexing and search[5]
* DocMgr 0.53.3, full featured document management system. Included search engine indexes OpenDocument files. [6]

Text management:

* eZ publish, supports import and export of writer documents via extension ? Content management system
* Scribus 1.2.2+ - a desktop publishing suite, imports ODT
* TEA text editor (in the read-only mode)
* Visioo Writer 0.6 ? Document viewer
* Mobile Office OpenDocument Suite for the Symbian OS platform

Translation support:

* OmegaT ? OmegaT is a free translation memory application written in Java.

Viewer:

* TextMaker Viewer[7]
* OpenDocument Viewer[8]

Bibliographic:

* RefWorks - Web-based commercial citation manager, supports uploading ODT files for citation formatting.

[rapier1]

So?

If 15,000 applications support one standard and 1 application
supports another it really doesn't mean a thing if that single
application commands 90%+ of the market. Wishful thinking
doesn't create market share.

[Commander_Spock]

So...

... where are the "web-based" supported S-P-R-E-A-D S-H-E-E-T-S....

[Renegade Knight]

Universal Document Format

The real goal is a universal document format so you can have one file format used by every application of it's kind. One Word Proccessor file type etc.

It's not a function of "Do we work with all existing and known propriatry word processors"?

Derive a well designed UDF file type and let the appliations sell the upgrade they want us to buy later. Don't comrpomise just because you can't convirt a file.

Heck the reason the USA isn't metric is that people insist on converting instead of just using a better system.

[rapier1]

While this is true

I agree with your statement but I feel that it ignores the reality of
how business is actually conducted. If you have a widely used
installed application base few people are going to bother writing
new applications to meet a new standard that isolates them from
that existing base. As such new applications and even upgrades
will continue to incorporate the old standards and it perpetuates
itself.

[blafkinm]

Looking for a Universal Format and Easter Bunnies

THe problem with the search for a single universal format is it the goal is probably unattainable. Different user groups have different needs, which are sometimes even mutually exclusive. Additonally, new technologies are added to the programs that use and create these documents every day and the it formats need to be adapated to use them (think Ink and embedded voice). We can make sure that these formats enable interop and long term access, but we will struggle mightily to find a one-size-fits all solution for the entire world.

This is why ODF or OpenXML-only policies are a disaster. I just wrote about this here:

http://blog.actonline.org/2007/10/we-hate-to-say-.html

[gary.edwards]

CDF and ODF

Thanks Martin but i think that last quote got a bit mangled. CDF does not need big vendor support to be able to do what it was designed to do - enable complex compound documents across the Web Platform. It is ODF that cannot be changed to an Internet ready format without the support of ODF vendors.

So the sentence should read; ""With ODF, it can be done but it's got to have the big vendors supporting it."

The hard truth is that ODF was not designed to meet the market requirements that stopped cold the implementation of ODF in Massachusetts. Those requirements are: compatibility with existing file formats, including MS binary documents; interoperability with existing applications, including MSOffice; and, able to work across the grand convergences of desktop, server, device and web systems. Grand convergence being the CDF sweet spot.

It's not that a single "universal" file format is impossible. It's that candidates for that role must be designed to meet a wide range of requirements. ODF falls short in a critically important area. And unless this shortfall is addressed, MS-OOXML will be the only XML many will be left to implement. That's why our work on CDF matters! Over 550 million desktops need an alternative to MS-OOXML.

~ge~

[kynada]

Again, your claims lack credibility.

I've previously posted a list of applications ranging across platforms, including the web, that ALL support ODF. In fact, ODF as a practical standard is now supported in more software across more platforms than any Microsoft Office format, including OO-XML. Making Microsoft-compatibility as a key requirement for a document standard is pointless and self-defeating, since Microsoft can (and regularly does) change it to break compatibility.

[Commander_Spock]

When Will "We" Ever Learn!

"When it comes to document standards, it seems that one is never quite good enough.

Adding a twist to a high-stakes conflict over document formats, some advocates for OpenDocument, or ODF, are abandoning the standard in favor of the World Wide Web Consortium's Compound Document Formats standard.

The reason? Technical limitations in sharing ODF files with Microsoft Office applications.

"We can't meet our market requirements with OpenDocument," said Gary Edwards who started the OpenDocument Foundation last year. "The truth is OpenDocument was never designed to meet market requirements."

Now, with respect to the above mentioned statement... does anyone remember the below attached quote from Commander_Spock from a 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication; "Re: Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.

In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return" Again, read carefully and observe the "limitations" if this was missed; "In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations"

Also; "OpenDocument is not an Internet-ready file format. There are lots of reasons why this is not the case. To me, we've been fighting to bring Open Document to the Internet and it means changing the basic charter," he said. "With CDF, it can be done but it's got to have the big vendors supporting it."

Sometimes it is a very wise idea and good thing to go back-to-the-future where it all started...

SO, LOTUS "KONA" ANYONE!

http://www.morochove.com/watch/cw/ff70206.htm

[bobcode]

DocBook?

What happened to DocBook? It's application agnostic.

[Jim Hubbard]

How to solve all of these issues now.

First stop with the so-called "standards". They waste millions in time and effort fighting for this and not giving on that. They force companies to use "standards" that are usually outdated as soon as they are passed. They increase costs to companies that have to retrofit their software to adhere to them (thus increasing the costs to the end users - at least initially). And, they only solve a VERY narrow band of issues that face consumers.

I really wish everyone would stop, take a day and consider a simple alternative that would solve compatibility issues not only for word processing and spreadsheets, but also for accounting, CAD, graphics, medical imaging and any other user data you can think of...

That alternative is Open Data Format Legislation. Simply stated, Open Data Format Legislation applies to any software (free or sold, proprietary or open source, done as a hobby or as a business) that saves user data in any form.

ODFL dictates that the format that the user data (any data manipulated by the program on behalf of or by the user) be published before the software may be distributed (whether for free or sold, for testing or for use).

ODFL does not require any company to use any specific format. Companies are free to use the most efficient, most useful format for their data and applications. Data storage innovations are not stifled with ODFL as with alternatives like ODF or CDF or (insert "standard" data format here).

ODFL does make all data readable by any other company who cares to support any published data format. The published data formats insure that data will be readable for the foreseeable future and removes any worries that your software vendor may go out of business and leave your data stranded (if you've got the published format, you can move your data where you like). Think of ODFL as a Rosetta Stone for all data formats.

ODFL makes software more affordable by giving the end user control over what is his/hers in the first place. ODFL makes it easy for companies to support one anothers' data formats and use that data interchangeably without the need for rewriting code bases or re-working entire data formats to snap to the newest old standard. Any non-ODFL-compliant company can comply immediately (in a single afternoon even ) with ODFL simply by publishing their data formats. Try that with ODF, CDF or OOXML.

ODFL provides data transparency in ALL software. ODF, OOXML and CDF do not.

And, ODFL has all of the benefits of ODF, CDF and OOXML with none of their drawbacks.

Do me a favor and just think about it, ok?

ODFL - data transparency that can happen in a day.

[Marbux]

It's more complex than that

Personally, I'd love to see legislation requiring that all file format specifications be published. But having "open" formats solves only part of the problem, unless you're satisfied with one-way interoperability.

What you propose might have worked well enough in the days when nearly all applications were end points. But modern apps more often have to function as routers of information, e.g., a file may need to be processed by a number of different types of applications in a business process and which application will be the next to process the file will often vary.

To get that kind of interoperability, you must have an interoperability framework, rules about what metadata applications must preserve under what circumstances and how they must process the data. This is the area where both ODF and OOXML fail badly and W3C Compound Document Formats shine.

Does it matter? Well, think about the scenario where you are in surgery and the surgeon is about to look at a whole bunch of your lab tests compiled from separate documements into a chart. Do you care whether the information he is looking at is accurate?

Please do not fall for the logic that conflates "open" with "interoperable." It's a myth.

[Commander_Spock]

Can't be that serious - are you!

"First stop with the so-called "standards". They waste millions in time and effort fighting for this and not giving on that. They force companies to use "standards" that are usually outdated as soon as they are passed. They increase costs to companies that have to retrofit their software to adhere to them (thus increasing the costs to the end users - at least initially). And, they only solve a VERY narrow band of issues that face consumers. I really wish everyone would stop, take a day and consider a simple alternative that would solve compatibility issues not only for word processing and spreadsheets, but also for accounting, CAD, graphics, medical imaging and any other user data you can think of... " Thank goodness that you have not listed the "aeronautical and space industries" among those that you are suggesting to "stop with the so-called "standards"". Phee...w! Have you ever heard about NDT or were ever a member of a national "standards" institution?

[samhiser]

"Embrace & Extend"

I'm quoted here out of original context on Jason's blog as saying,

"We feel that if one ignores the 1/2-odd billion desktops out there (with Microsoft Office), then one is not solving anyone's particular pain-points. We kind of like your company's old Embrace & Extend concept."

What I mean by that is that it is necessary to Embrace the Microsoft installed base and Extend it into legitimate open standards.

A discerning eye on the details of ODF reveals that it is not open enough. Only CDF meets the full list of enterprise market requirements. OpenOffice.org's 85% conversion fidelity is a wet noodle up against the business processes which are welded around Microsoft's proprietary document formats (and OOXML is -- let there be no doubt -- unquestionably proprietary).

[Mproject]

This is Confusing

So, the organizations or people that have now changed to ODF, will have to later change to a new format because ODF is not good enough.

It sounds like Microsoft have there hands everywhere don't they.

Little by little, I was moving to openoffice because of ODF and now I am not certain anymore.

[Commander_Spock]

Confusing You Say!

"So, the organizations or people that have now changed to ODF, will have to later change to a new format because ODF is not good enough. It sounds like Microsoft have there hands everywhere don't they..." Well, the view at this juncture is - the already approved International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) ODF Standards will continue to evolve; and, at least with the U. S. Department of Defense along with IBM among other companies are very likely to have their "collective" say from time to time. Therefore - IT ISN'T GOING TO BE OVER UNTIL THE "CONCORDE" FLIES AGAIN - USA (not the EU) Style! Watch the gas prices at the pumps; maybe, one day it might be cheaper to fly (on "ETHANOL" produced from corn or sugar-cane) than driving by auto to certain destinations!

[angrykeyboarder]

KOffice & Abiword

Their default file format is OpenDocument.

It's not just OpenOffice.org anymore...

I believe Corel was (is) going OpenDocument as well.