Sun Asks China to Merge its Doc Format With ODF 114
christian.einfeldt writes "Sun's Chairman Scott McNealy has asked the world's most populous nation to merge its Uniform Office Format with the Open Document Format. Tech lawyer Andy Updegrove thinks that McNealy would not have flown to China and taken this chance of rejection if McNealy didn't think that there was a good likelihood of success."
Mod parent up (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Numbers game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Numbers game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Numbers game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see the sense in this. Are the products they're exporting word processing documents? If not, it doesn't matter one bit what the customer is using as far as a word processor go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember English took the international language title from French due to the importance of *selling* to the English speaking market - particularly the US. When - in 10 years - China is the biggest market, they'll begin to take that title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harmonize or Adopt? (Score:1, Interesting)
If China 'harmonizes' with it, thats a bad thing, it creates yet another format.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the greedy are playing dirty politics, and decent people still care about their reputations, there's no such thing as game over. Well, not for the good, anyway.
playing the numbers game :) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Numbers game (Score:5, Insightful)
Office is an application suite. ODF is a document format. They're apples and oranges. With appropriate plugins, Office will interoperate with ODF documents -- just as any number of other applications will.
Claiming that OOXML is better than ODF because MS Office is better than OpenOffice is disingenuous; there's no reason MS Office and ODF can't be used together, and quite a bit of money and development time is being poured into making that an effective solution (thanks in no small part to
Re:Numbers game (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that you advance the argument that having a standardized final format is adequate and folks can use whatever source formats they please while slamming me for naiveté. Applications where the ability to send documents which can be edited and transformed between parties in different organizations is critical abound, so using a view-only destination format for external communication is clearly inadequate. Preserving presentation is fine in a significant number of cases -- but if I'm standardizing on the document format used for communicating site surveys (which may be parsed and used to automatically configure servers) between my company (where the engineering department does not run Windows), its support and sales staff and VAR force (which largely do), I need documents which are editable, archivable into a database server and queryable at each stage (the latter being something XForms is quite useful for; I understand that Microsoft's InfoPath may provide some comparable functionality).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Office is an application suite. ODF is a document format. They're apples and oranges. With appropriate plugins, Office will interoperate with ODF documents -- just as any number of other applications will.
I think the reason is that this doesn't work both ways - while Office could have a plugin written to support ODF, you can't write an alternative Office suite which supports OOXML. Not because there's anything wrong with OOXML as such, but a few issues surroun
Re: (Score:1)
Office is an application suite. ODF is a document format. They're apples and oranges. With appropriate plugins, Office will interoperate with ODF documents -- just as any number of other applications will.
True, they are different things, but one is the cause of the other. Put in another way - what good would .odt be without a program that can read them and produce them? Having the best and most capable document standard (SGML comes to mind) doesn't mean that anyone will actually use it (how many SGML editors are there?).
True enough Office could interoperate with almost any format - the question is whether it is worth the time and money to develop the software to do so... and probably from the MS standpoi
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, Microsoft aren't the only folks who can do this, and inte
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is, Microsoft aren't the only folks who can do this, and interested third parties have already decided that supporting ODF from Word is worth the time and money. See the da Vinci ODF plugins for Office. In short -- MS Word already is an ODF editor, though roundtrip support will be substantially improved after ODF 1.2 comes out.
That link was very interesting - thanks for pointing it out. I hope this plug-in works out. Perhaps its technology could be 'ported' to other applications. I was thinking of InDesign or Scribus which could use an ODF importer - not to mention that I would no longer have to 'save as' in OpenOffice or include a link to download it to colleagues - I could just simply tell them to install this plug-in and let them use the program they like.
These kinds of projects make me more hopeful for the future of ODF -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
So indeed, good luck to McNealy on this mission.
Re:Numbers game (Score:5, Informative)
And ODF is absolutely the better standard. It leverages preexisting standards such as SVG and MathML instead of reinventing the wheel; it's structured to permit XSLT-style transformations; a complete implementation isn't required to have support for legacy bugs from MS Office. Version 1.2 of the standard will require that implementations preserve unknown attributes to allow support for lossless roundtripping to and from legacy formats; support for lossless roundtripping to and from Word is an early application for this, already available in prototype. The only serious deficiency I'm familiar with is that spreadsheet formulas are unspecified and left to the implementor -- and while that is unfortunate, it's not like there aren't de-facto standards to work from until it's resolved (also in OpenDocument 1.2).
I realize it's trendy to be jaded, and I have little love for many of Sun's actions -- but I'm pretty sure they're on the right side inasmuch as ODF is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at KOffice and others (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure the only open source ones are OpenOffice and KOffice, but many small 3rd party wordprocessors have changed to ODF. So at no point will we be trapped by Sun, we will have the option of buying any of a handfull of commercial implementations, and probably 1-2 two other open source ones.
Re: (Score:2)
"Supporting ODF" is a very vague statement. OpenOffice and many small 3rd party word processors support Ms Word
Re:Numbers game (Score:5, Insightful)
We need ODF so that we can have more than one office suite available to choose from, and still be able to exchange documents accurately. It's the same reason we have standards for anything, computers or otherwise.
OpenXML on the other hand can not be accurately implemented by anybody other than Microsoft and is controlled by nobody other than Microsoft. On top of that, it's a badly written format that even requires that implementors perform miscalculations so that Microsoft doesn't have to actually fix their own product.
Even more compelling is this list of ODF implementors:
OpenOffice.org/StarOffice
KOffice
Abiword
Gnumeric
Lotus Notes
Google's Documents
Apple's TextEdit (in Leopard)
Corel WordPerfect (mid-2007)
Microsoft Office XP/2003/2007
As opposed to the list of Office OpenXML implementors:
Microsoft Office 2007
Corel WordPerfect (mid-2007)
So if you want to use anything other than Windows, ODF is your only choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's a battle between ODF and OOXML.
ODF was approved over a long drawn out process that took the input from various companies and can be implemented by multiple companies and open source projects. It reuses existing standards wherever possible. ODF is open to criticism and has already included revisions to include support for disabilities and generally specified formulas. Hopefully, it'll absorb China's format too. The official version of ODF is what's specified in the standard (regardless what OpenOffice implements), so you can be sure of a level playing field.
OOXML, OTOH, was rubber stamped by ECMA (that was one of the conditions of the submission) and fastracked to the ISO despite the objections of a record number of countries. It reinvents stands wherever possible, forces the implementation of bugs in the standards (i.e. implement the Y2K bug), has references to external specifications that are not being standardized, and has cute phrases like "Do this the way Word95 did it" without specifying what that means. The official version of OOXML is what Microsoft implements (regardless what ISO specifies), so you can be sure of an uneven playing field with Microsoft being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.
Given these two document formats, ODF clearly deserves to win.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sorty, this is bullshit.
The ECMA process took over a year to complete, and there were many revisions and multiple drafts released during that time. The ratification vote wasn't guaranteed. IBM was on the committee and voted NO. All other members had the same opportunity to vote NO as well (though nobody else did, since they didn't have an pro-ODF agenda that IBM did; IBM lost 20-1). Those other members included App
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I saw it, ODF was not controled by SUN. It was an international standard, created by several companies and other kinds of entities.
Now, it's SUN pushing for ODF there... And so what? If it was Microsoft pushing for an open standard wouldn't it be as good? (Of course MS won't do that).
And, maybe ODF has its flaws (I don't know, I don't like OOo a lot, but don't know the format that well). But it's a well docummented, short, simple and formal standard. If we get something better later, we can just
Re:Numbers game (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing something imperfect invariably results in tuning to address those imperfections.
In the same vein... (Score:1)
This is a true story that depicts my descent into the hellish world of "computer customization."
It started innocently about a year ago; as few friends of mine sat around the glow of the monitor and trolling for Grammar Nazis on Usenet. Lucie said something or other about different keyboard layouts. I didn't think anything about it until the next time we met over at Bill's place.
Lucie had this black bag with her and she pulled out a keyboard. "C'mon," she urged with a malicious twinkle in
I can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a perception that people NEED office to function, getting ODF widely accepted would be a huge blow to Microsoft.
Re:I can't wait (Score:4, Interesting)
So if the people making this decision in China are like my sister and father, all they need do is offer them a discounted Office and they'll go with Microsoft's XML format, simply because there's the perception that they'll be getting a discount.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to be kidding. There are surely high points and low points to ms office, but it most certainly is not "awesome." A more accurate description might be "adequate for many tasks if you're not picky, but in constant danger of imploding under the weight of its own pointless bloat."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While i prefer and primarily use Koffice and OpenOffice, MS Office wins in terms of user interface, usability, and functionality across the board. It is a superb office suite that wins hands down. Even the biggest linux and FOSS fanboy has to admit it's absolute awesomeness.
Actually, the relative merits of MSOffice and OpenOffice depend a lot upon what you do with it. MSOffice loses on the following points:
Re: (Score:2)
Partially, it is not that it has a better interface but that we are familiar with it. I know OO gives me fits with the way they moved some things even tho I recognize the moves were logical and Office is irrational (and is going to change a lot with the Vista Version).
But I *will* change to OO. I've been slowly doing so for about 2 years now. It's getting very good and I'm getting more familiar with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe Sun should be working to adopt Office Open XML, which is likely to be the most adopted format. I know that Microsoft could have some ulterior motives behind making their XML format open - and perhaps it isn't open at all, but why can't the open source community use the same tactics to their advantage and make an effort to steer the populist formats towards th
Re: (Score:1)
If Scott brings the correct carrot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
that's what china really is.
Nobody in China will use either (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Programme.
(Sorry. Maybe a program helped you enrol in the programme.)
Re:Nobody in China will use either (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
china and open standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Lest we forget (Score:2)
So, one issue would be whether ODF is suitable for representing Chinese (and Japanese) text. ... and how much aggravation is involved in using ODF to represent the chanacters -- compared to whatever solution(s) they are using now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, just because ODF (or any similar encoding scheme) can represent a subset of the characters does not mean that the Chinese will be happy with it. If you want to take this discussion further, you'll need to learn some basics of how Chinese characters are constructed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters#C h inese [wikipedia.org]
I'm
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
ODF has had this support since 2002.
See: http://opendocument.xml.org/milestones [xml.org]
Re: (Score:2)
non-English-alphabetic characters. And you know who this stunning insight has occurred to before?
China.
Re: (Score:2)
> non-English-alphabetic characters.
No, non alphabetic. You know alphabet == alaph-bet or alpha-beta. The name derives from the first two letters in middle eastern/western system. The Chinese use an ideogramic character system, the Japanese use a combined syllabery and ideogramic system and in Europe and the middle East, languages are written in the Roman/Greek/Cyrillic/Hebrew/Arabic/etc alphabet.
As usual, Wikipedia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the mcneal (Score:1)
Mr. Tao, tear down this wall! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably Because (Score:3, Interesting)
Another article linked by Andy Updegrove. (Score:2)
Andy Updegrove gave interesting link to article: Sun's McNealy Proposes Merging ODF with Chinese Counterpart [betanews.com].
The article goes into into technical side of merge highlighting technical differences between the two file formats. And from my reading it seems like UOF is superior to ODF in many aspects.
Re: (Score:2)
You DO realize we are talking about China here, the country that hasn't sold over 300 legit copies of Windows Vista yet, right?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A Chinese company selling in China might get atleast a reasonable proportion of people to pay.
I do not know China, but in my part of the world, no-one buys Windows, but corporates are paying up for Lotus Notes because IBM is starting to enforce it. Similarly you can get pirated DVDs of most films, but not films imported by a particular distributor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a FACT that I am subsidizing medical care, medicine, entertainment (DVD, CD), and now software ($3 for Microsoft software stack -- free VB &
Using moderation to try and shut it up by calling a troll doesn't change the fact that the same people I am competing against for a job are getting huge discounts on their infrastructure from ameri