Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Now an ISO standard

Approved as ISO/IEC 26300. [1] --88.153.141.98 13:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited page to say so. -- Dwheeler 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
ISO/IEC 26300 is NOT an ISO Standard. The vorting summary on the draft was dispatched at this date (stage 40.60 [2]). Next step will be the FDIS (final draft) and after that it will be published as a standard: ISO Standard development process. ghw 08:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Stages of the development of International Standards has all the details:
  • Stage 4: Enquiry stage - The draft International Standard (DIS) is circulated to all ISO member bodies by the ISO Central Secretariat for voting and comment within a period of five months. (= stage 40.60)
  • Stage 5: Approval stage - The final draft International Standard (FDIS) is circulated to all ISO member bodies by the ISO Central Secretariat for a final Yes/No vote within a period of two months. (= stage 50.99)
  • Stage 6: Publication stage - stage 60.60
I've tried to incorporate this information into OpenDocument standardization

This is factually incorrect. The ISO press release itself [3] states that "The OpenDocument Format...has just been approved for release as an ISO and IEC International Standard." Under ISO procedures an FDIS draft which has received no negative votes is already an International Standard. You can read through JTC1 directives for details [4] I draw particular attention between "approval" and "publication". Under JTC1 rules, publication is just an archiving step. The specification must already be an IS before it can be published. It is the "approval" step which creates the standard, and this happened back in May. I've personally confirmed these facts with the SC34 Chair and provided official citations. So, I am changing the language back to correctly reflect the status of OpenODocument. If anyone can find a contrary citation of equal weight to an official ISO press release, then we can cite that in addition. But until then there is a strong presumption that an ISO press release reflects the official ISO position on the status of ODF. Melomel 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that the ISO "Catalogue Detail Page" shows the status as of 9 October 2006 to be stage 50.00, "FDIS registered for formal approval," which is ordinarily the step before FDIS balloting and is not equivalent to IS status. Was ODF submitted as a "fast track" standard? That appears to be the only documented means of skipping directly from DIS to IS (in which case the ISO stage info would appear to be incorrect).
I'd be shocked if it was NOT submitted as a "fast track" standard; OASIS has the right to submit documents as a fast track standard. I'm pretty sure that it was submitted as a fast-track, but I can't say for certain. I think the ISO stage info at ISO's catalog website is incorrect. -- Dwheeler 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that what occurred in May was the close of the six-month DIS ballot, not FDIS as claimed in the main article. This is what's claimed on the SC34 Secretariat's page ("DIS 26300 Ballot Resolution") and is consistent with both the stage-50.00 status and the JTC1 rules. FDIS balloting is one or two months. -- Roelofs 11 October 2006

link to converter

Better one is this one. But it's deep alpha:

When will there be something available to download?

The first versions of the Perl server components should be available in a couple of weeks.

With a working server, our hope is that means a usable plugin in less than a month.

Update: A couple of news reports have suggested or implied (incorrectly) that a plugin has already been completed. This is not the case.

--jno 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Date error?

Is was the standard accepted on 1st may 2005 or 2006??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.136.223 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 May 2006

This page looks like advertising---Stop talking about MSOffice!

I nominated this article as failing to meet Quality Standards.--- First, let me state that I hate MSOffice, actually use OpenOffice, and just recently backed up most of my stuff in ODFormats (no more suffering for having to upgrade MSWord.--- Nonetheless, I think this article features MS's failures too heavily, and seems like a promo for OpenDocument.--- Move on and stop talking about MSOffice. If you want to follow the controversy, read Wikinews.--- Louie 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the whole section on Public Policy may go the way of the dodo. Louie 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul dated 5/29/2006

I did some major surgery to fix the advertising tone of this article, so I may remove the advert tag soon. Removed some sections I deem as unencyclopedic (and references to other articles, which I accordingly tagged as unencyclopedic). Now it seems that it is only matter of merging external articles that got splitted up in a previous attempt to fit article size into reasonable terms.--- Louie 21:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I finished the job by adding sub-articles, instead of full merges, and fixed the corresponding links. Louie 00:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OpenDocument/Controversy sub-article?

Hello!--- I think lots of controversial, quasi-advertising material may go into an article OpenDocument/Controversy. This is to preserve a lot of people's work somewhere. Louie 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Material removed from the article

I have to object to Jlrn7's rewrite of the article. Information such as adoption in Europe, a summary of the specification, and a long list of references were apparently deleted. But for me the worst change was the removal of any mention of accessibility, a critical issue for OpenDocument.

I'm all for cutting down the article size by summarizing issues here and linking to the appropriate main articles. And it's possible that the previous version didn't present a balanced view of supporters and critics. But I think the rewrite went too far. Wmahan. 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also noticed that he renamed some OpenDocument-related articles, such as:
The new names do not follow the Manual of Style and I think the renames should have been discussed first. Wmahan. 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A few words to justify my actions:
  1. First, I agree that the earliest version of the article grew far too much, and perhaps in the wrong direction: it looked more like advertising for OpenDocument than an account of what OpenDocument is. In some ways, the split was necessary; but I didn't quite like the way it was done.
    1. Most of the article names were way too verbose and hard to maintain.
    2. Most of the articles had redundant information, mostly copied from the heading of the main article OpenDocument, and needed to be updated any time that article was revised.
    3. The main article kept the main source of trouble, I think: this issue of standardization, public policy shaping, and Microsoft's reaction to the whole issue. Many people have strong opinions on MS's behavior, and that was overly reflected in the body of the article.
  2. Second, I'm still working on this overhaul. So stay calm, I think I'm more than halfway through.
    1. I messed up the article names unadvertently. I apologize for that. At this point I think they are more orderly.
    2. The new article names are short, informative (I hope), and easier to maintain.
      1. [OpenDocument technical specification] gives some technical details of the formats.
      2. [OpenDocument software] lists the software supporting the formats.
      3. [OpenDocument standardization] describes the standardization process and results.
      4. [OpenDocument debate] documents the debate surrounding the development, standardization, and publication of the formats, plus Microsoft's reactions and [wrong]doings.
    3. Most of the redundant info was mercilessly removed: they belong to, and must be kept in, the body of the main article.
    4. The final step will be reordering the OpenDocument category, and deletion/removal of the redundant pages/articles.
IMO, the technical specification and licensing should be merged into the main body, while the other articles may be kept in their extant places. Specially the OpenDocument debate, which for the most part looks unencyclopedic to me...
I acknowledge I've been too bold in my editing, and I apologize for that.--- Louie 18:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding the accesibility issue, I think that account belongs to the OpenDocument debate.--- Louie 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
First, I appreciate your efforts to improve the articles' neutrality. I have no problem with you removing what you see as anti-Microsoft parts of the article. My concern is that much of the material removed was clearly not POV. For example, before there was a long list of references, and now there are none; that doesn't seem like a step forward to me.
I think another area of disagreement is the role of the main articles. IMO, information such as accessibility, software support, and adoption should have their own articles, but should in addition be summarized here. As you say, this can lead to duplication between articles and can require more effort to maintain, but I would argue that it's the only way to give a balanced overview. It's also consistent with the rest of Wikipedia; for instance, Criticism of Microsoft has its own article, but is also summarized at Microsoft.
In particular, I think accessibility should be discussed in this article, because it's an important issue. I'm not sure if it was an oversight, but right now, there's not even a link to Accessibility in OpenDocument.
I understand that you're still working on the article, and I'm willing to be patient, as you ask. But I think the burden is on you to show specifically why the information you remove doesn't belong, beyond the general goals of neutrality and brevity. Thanks, Wmahan. 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I answer dutifully in parts.
  • Most of the references supported the OpenDocument debate; they were accordingly moved to that article; the slashed article is now so brief that the extant Wikipedia crossreferences and external links are enough to document it.
  • You're maybe right: the articles on specifications, licensing, and software support should stay separate, and a short summary be given here. I think that's already the case with these entries. What I don't take however is the repetition of the description of OpenDocument in all those articles. That description belongs here, and it should be kept in here.
  • The removal of the accessibility section was a mistake. Please add a section and a two-paragraph summary in the main article and the corresponding link. Sorry!
  • I'll be very busy in the next few days, so please hold on. I'll do some basic maintaining of this main article, just to make sure POV doesn't pop-up again.
Cheers!--- Louie 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I restored some of the material that I think is necessary to give a full overview of ODF. I tried to be careful not to include anything that might be perceived as a slam against ODF critics.
Regarding Microsoft: MS formats are the de facto standard, and ODF will necessarily compete against them for adoption. Hence in my view, it is appropriate for the article to mention Microsoft's formats as well as its position on ODF.
Some of the statements that I restored, such as "OpenDocument is the only standard for editable office documents that has been vetted by an independent recognized standards body, [etc.]...", are matters of fact that I think are relevant to a neutral presentation. I think it would also be appropriate to include information that might support Microsoft's position, but I don't agree with removing such facts altogether.
Finally, I didn't intend my changes as any sort of slight against your work. I expect and welcome further changes by you and others. I would be happy discuss any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Wmahan. 05:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I praise your efforts to take the "status quo" into account, but I'm afraid even the mention of MS or its formats may lead us to include the whole debate all over again into this article. So, in my view, it is healthier to remove even the slightest mention of MSetc, and stick to the subject of ODF, as if MS didn't even exist. The Comparison articles will do that job.--- Cheerfully, Louie 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I can see where you're coming from in wanting to keep the Microsoft vs. OpenDocument debate in a separate article. I agree that before your changes, parts of the article were biased toward an anti-Microsoft POV, and that we should prevent such bias from creeping back in. And I have no problem with keeping the details of the debate separate.
However, I think that pretending as if MS and the associated debate didn't exist would be a decidedly non-neutral way of presenting the information. As I said before, how ODF compares with MS formats, as well as MS's support or opposition to ODF, could be key factors in whether ODF becomes universally adopted, or falls by the wayside like so many other standards. Wmahan. 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it all comes down to equal treatment. If we can keep info on both ODF and MOOX fully separate, we can achieve articles both informative and NPOV. (You can describe Lisp without mentioning Python.) There still would be debate, and thus clearly visible links pointing to the debate, or format and software comparisons, where all this stuff is documented. I do not mean to pretend that competition and debate don't exist, but a sober description of each format shouldn't point to the other: since this issue is hot-potato, even the slightest reference may lead many editors into format wars.
Whether or which one becomes standard depends on American courts and lawyers, the European Commission on Trade, or the invisible hand. Personally, I almost have no preference, as long as full access is preserved; I think two fully open standards wouldn't do any harm.--- Louie 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I appreciate your positive and constructive attitude toward my edits. Wmahan. 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
So do I. Louie 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it looks back like an ODF advertisement

I re-read the whole main article on OpenDocument, and now it seems to me that, while the anti-MS bias is somewhat lessened, the article reads again as an ODF advertising... I have three main complaints,

  1. the "political developments" section should go; otherwise, I see no way to avoid being redundant, against the debate article, or partisan;
  2. the "accessibility" issue may be properly dealt with in the OpenDocument software article;
  3. the advertising tone is pretty well avoided if we simply silence the existence of MOOX/DOC/XLS/PPT; comparison|contrast|debate should go in the appropriate pages.

What can we do? Louie 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. I would be willing cut down the size of the section called "Public policy implications" and link to a detailed article. But I don't agree with removing the section entirely. I think mentioning ODF adoption discussions in Europe, MA, and elsewhere is essential to any balanced overview of the subject.
    • As to redundancy, wiki is not paper, and there's nothing wrong with some repetition. To me, the fact that the topic is controversial doesn't imply that the discussion of it will be partisan, and doesn't warrant moving it to another article.
    • Maybe I misinterpret your view, but it seems as if you want to split the information between one article that pretends no controversy exists for the sake of neutrality, and another that covers the controversy. I have two objections: first, every article should aim for neutrality, and it is possible to describe controversy in a balanced way regardless of how the information is organized. Second, removing controversy from this article leads to a quite unbalanced presentation since it falsely minimizes the importance of controversial topics.
  2. I don't object to merging Accessibility in OpenDocument into OpenDocument software.
  3. As explained above, I think pretending that MOOX/DOC/XLS/PPT don't exist leads to an unbalanced presentation. Regardless of one's view of ODF, I don't think it is fair to ignore de facto standard formats it is intended to replace, just because they are MS formats or because the issue is controversial. Wmahan. 06:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I have no objections to cutting down that section. Go ahead!
    • I agree with the first part of the second point. That's why I deem the Office digital formats debate as encyclopedic. However, the fact that WP is not paper doesn't allow unnecessary repetition; I still think the discussion belongs to another article, while indeed some indication of the ongoing debate should be pointed out, and duly linked to.
    • Removing as much from the body of the controversy leads to parsimony and objectivity in the presentation of the topic; and summarizing of the controversy with the corresponding crossreference (the same way the standardization process, technical specification, etc. have been summarized) allows for the balanced view we all aim to. If you see the current version, you'll notice the Political Developments section is as long as the paragraphs on technical specification, standardization, and application support together.
  2. I'll go ahead and do the merging... Meanwhile, you could merge the same topic into the corresponding section in the main article.
  3. I don't know about this one... We may mention MS's take on ODF in the debate section, but I doubt whether it belongs to the introduction of the article. Let's try to make some compromise: I'll remove the reference to MS and its formats from the introduction, alluding to the proprietary standards problem in general, while you summarize and include the reference to the proprietary de facto standard in the Political Developments section. BTW, I think it may be a good idea to find a better name for the Political Developments section, more according to the Office standards debate article. Something like "OpenDocument vs. Proprietary Formats", or something like that.--- Cheers! Louie 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with everything you said. I hope you find my latest changes satisfactory.
I'll go ahead and edit the intro as I said. Comments are welcome. Louie 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
A minor point: it's not clear to me why we should refer the reader to Standard office document formats debate for the list and discussion of governments around the world that are considering using ODF. That list is relatively easy to verify and not really a matter a debate. It's also ODF-specific information, but the title of the debate article does not even mention OpenDocument. Would it make sense to create a separate OpenDocument adoption article, and merge in Adoption of ODF in Europe, Adoption of ODF in Massachusetts, and the information regarding other governments from the debate article? Wmahan. 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. So perhaps this section will have a link to main article "OpenDocument adoption", and a further link to "formats debate".
I did the intro edit and rearranged the material in the article. Somehow, the adoption section doesn't seem right to start the article, before specification and application support. I tried to organize the article in a more logical way, but I'm not quite happy. You may want to give it a shot. Louie 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: I understand you mean to cut the "adoption" section from the debate, and merge "adoption in MA" and "adoption in EU" into it under the "OpenDocument adoption" title. The remainder of "standard formats debate" remains where it is. I think now I understand, and I think it's a good idea... Just make sure you crossreference the section to the main adoption article (top), with a further link to the debate (bottom).--- Cheers! Louie 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'll get started on the merging. Keep up the good work! Wmahan. 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This new version seems far better. I still have some doubts here and there, but I better let it cool for a while. Thanks for your understanding. Louie 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consider those linking from external sites

During rewrites/moves, please remember that other sites and search engines link to these pages and to their subtopics. If you are going to make changes in page titles, combine pages, etc., please heed the Wikipedia guidance on Redirection, in particular the topic on Renamings and merges. Pages should be redirected rather than retitled. OpenDocument is an ongoing hot topic for many, with megabucks hanging in the balance. There will be lots of revisions in these pages. Every time information is retitled (even in subtopics) or moved, links are broken on other sites.

So please, do not retitle pages. If you are unwilling to do the work of redirecting to a new page with the new title, you should find someone who is willing to do the work. And please bear in mind that rewriting subheadings breaks links on other sites too. Try to avoid rewriting or removing them unless it is truly important.

Those pages that have been retitled need to be recreated as redirection pages. I hope those that did the retitling will do the work.

P.S. I'm here because links I maintain on other sites to these pages were broken. It's a lot of work to update all of them every time someone goes into a refactoring frenzy here, which happens all too often in this category. Many times, I cannot repair the damage because the links were created in fora where my editing rights have expired. -- Marbux 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

US Government Standard

The article claims: "ODF will be the standard document format for the United States government as of 1 January 2007". I haven't read that anywhere else and I believe that it is untrue. Does anyone have a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonL (talk • contribs) .

I removed it... it's a pretty big claim to make without a reliable source to back it up. -/- Warren 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That seems like the right thing to do. --JonL 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
January 7, 2007 is the date that it becomes the standard document format for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Branch, assuming no unannounced delays. I suspect it was a misunderstanding or a lack of mastery over the English language. Marbux 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OpenDocument Fellowship Quietly Admits OpenDocument Implementation Flaws

I have sincere problems with the citation of Zaske’s Blog for the sentence: "A possible problem is that the current ODF implementations of OpenOffice.org and KOffice are not compatible [3].". Since in his blog he based his discussion on the (already cited [4]) http://opendocumentfellowship.org/applications/koffice . Why not only cite the last reference without including this blog, which is in my opinion too much of a sensationalist article based on current premature implementations? - Arthur

I added the page to zaske's blog as he give examples for the incompatibility and show that even official documents created by the OASIS foudation itself get completly manged when editted in the three different implementations. The openfellowship page just makes a small not that there might be incompetabilities not stating which incompetabilities nor the seriousness of these incompetabilities.If any link to remove than the Opendocumentfellowship links as they do not indicate the lack of competability between Office implementations to be a serieus issue at all.
There is page on the Opendocument fellowship rating the applications and for instance giving kOffice a 4 star rating even though it severely mangles OOo created documents. The koffice page states: Our tests show that OpenOffice and KOffice have some problems opening each other's OpenDocument files. This seems a severe understatement especially when you edit the documents. I do have some objections to the Zaske blog as it is a Microsft guy that should be consideredd biased against ODF but at least his findings are objectivly repeatable for everybody. Also it balances the info links by the opendocumentfellowship that is biased the other way. I suggest replacing either of the biased links only if a more objective source writes an article about the subject of exchanging ODF documents between the supporting application hAl 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Writely Supports OpenDocument

Perhaps someone should add Writely (www.writely.com) as a supported Word Processor. It can save documents in OpenDocument format (although the menu option is "Save as OpenOffice").

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OpenDocument/Archive_3&oldid=390318500"