Docvert 3.0 Lessens Reliance On Microsoft Office 108
An anonymous reader writes "After 10 months of development Docvert 3.0 was released today. This open source web service converts DOC files to Oasis OpenDocument 1.0, and then to HTML, RSS, or any XML format. Try the ODF demo or download the source and install it on your own box. Version 3.0 comes with an MS Word Plugin, FTP/WebDAV upload, and an in-browser document editor."
It promises to be an interesting battle (Score:4, Insightful)
Describing exceptions doesn't make a standard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I'm quite sure that Microsoft really doesn't give a and will push this through as 'their' standard that everyone else will have to adhere to to be able to do anything with Mickyshaft generated content anyway.
Whether ISO approves of this or not is inconsequential, the only thing that matters is that M$ can now say: Look, we proposed a standard, it's not our fault 'they' think it's not good enough.
Re:It promises to be an interesting battle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please recommend compliance validation tools (Score:5, Insightful)
And the sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Divy it up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open XML is a transliteration (Score:5, Insightful)
The second design requirement was that the spec be developed and released quickly, before ODF had time to gain much traction. Between these two objectives, it's hardly surprising that it ended up the way it did...
Re:Describing exceptions doesn't make a standard. (Score:4, Insightful)
But yeah it doesn't matter much to the private sector / industry.
Re:And the sad thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The user cares only for the document he sees in print or on screen. The internal structure of the file interests him not at all.
Re:It promises to be an interesting battle (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have to implement it correctly. They can claim support for a standard [msversus.org] for years without actually following it (e.g. CSS, Kerberos, etc.) and still get the contracts. They were actually involved in creating some CSS standards and still didn't follow them.
It's all about the money. Get the big contracts and nothing else matters.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Updegrove might have a vested interest in ODF succeeding doesn't detract from the OOXML proposed standard being a crock of shit.
Re:I originally read OOXML ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And i wonder how you could. Even just reading the the
Re:Please recommend compliance validation tools (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like pretty much like business as usual for MSFT, although describing in 6,000 pages how hard it would be to create an interoperating product is new. Their format is the standard, even the flaws that they didn't fix before release.
Re:It promises to be an interesting battle (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anybody implement for free?
I think so! But, you'll need to get a copy of the standard first, and I believe ISO normally charge.. rather more than I'd like for that.
Can MS get fined for saying they support the standard when in fact their software actually does not...
I doubt it, but if a test case can be produced to prove the fault, they'll maybe/probably/hopefully/perhaps fix it. Depending on whos asking for a fix!
You're right that *a standard* is far better than no standard at all. But the only reason MS have done this now is because they've been forced into it due to various governments demanding open standards for documents, and thus, by getting this adopted as a standard, they get to keep business! They are not interested in other people using the standard to write competing software, and as such, I expect they'll move the goal posts as soon as anyone gets close.
Re:Please recommend compliance validation tools (Score:3, Insightful)
ODF has already been supported by several implementations, and some of these threw up some OpenOffice-isms; if the support had been finished before the standard had been finalised then this would have allowed them to be fixed.
ISO maybe, but never an IETF standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Outside Office 2007, who would ever implement this "standard"?
Re:And the sad thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open XML is a transliteration (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the reason for all the "render like WordPerfect 5.x" options that people have complained about, because they have to allow people to convert to the XML format and then convert back without reducing the document to an unreadable mess.
There is no reason I know of why the XML format cannot support all the features of Word and round trip, without relying on nasty hacks like this, it just takes more work. The problem with "Open"XML that I've seen is the concentrate entirely on supporting only the features of .doc files and their interactions with other programs to the exclusion of anything else. Rather than "render like WP 5.x" you need to define how WP 5.x renders that feature, then incorporate it into your conversion script in a way that makes sense in general for documents.
The whole format is built upon the assumption that only MS and Word will be using it and it is not designed to abstract word processing documents in general, but to kowtow to the eccentricities of Word.
The alternative is to not support roundtripping and then wait for slashdot headlines like "Users find that the new Office XML format mangles their documents".
No, the alternative is to do it right and build hacks like the ones you mention into the import and export routines, rather than embedding them, without any definition, into the format.
Re:Describing exceptions doesn't make a standard. (Score:3, Insightful)
Idealism will only get you so far, especially when it squares off against practicality.