The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Charles-H. Schulz Charles-H. Schulz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

... may be found here:

 http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/974#comment-974 

Best,

--
Charles-H. Schulz
Co-founder, The Document Foundation,
Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Svante Schubert Svante Schubert
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

Am 26.02.2014 22:48, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:
> ... may be found here:
>
>  http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/974#comment-974 
>
> Best,
>
Very good post!

Although I bet the CC on the [hidden email] took the
server down last night. ;)
Unfortunately I waited with my post till the very end to become the last
post it unfortunately got lost.

Please allow me to sent my post here instead so the effort was not for
nothing and it still might help someone of your marketing:
 

*Rule Britannia!*

I would like to thank the Open Standards board for its courage to change
the road being taken for decades and aiming for innovation, giving
smaller companies an opportunity.
I really do hope that there will be no OOXML aside of ODF in the
proposal as there is no need for it and I fear it would weaken the
ecosystem of transparency.
But I have to wish you luck, as there is this saying, that it always seems easier for a company to add
another software from Microsoft to its stack than a better alternative (the vicious circle) and an
IT manager usually does not risk his job by choosing Microsoft. Not to
mention the powerful MS lobby.
Still I hope Britain is able to break free as the city of Munich did before.
Many good lessons can be learned from Munich, which has proven that even
with additional education the use of open-source is cheaper. Now even their
approaches and tools can be reused/shared.

Regarding innovation I would like to point out an upcoming technical
innovation of ODF starting with change-tracking <https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office-collab>. Instead of saving
before/after states, changes/operation are being specified and can be
used as well for real-time collaboration.
Two implementations (WebODF <http://webodf.org/> and OX documents <https://www.ox.io/ox_text>) both open-source <http://git.open-xchange.com/git/office> browser
based ODF editors have taken first steps of testing a joined
collaboration. Unthinkable that Office365 would do allow collaboration
with applications from vendors other than Microsoft.

Finally I would like to comment on the promise of Microsoft to the EU <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/dec09/12-16statement.aspx> to
support every ODF ISO standard 9 months after its publishing.
Although the Microsoft support of ODF 1.1 in MS Office 2010 was only
moderate, the support of ODF 1.2 in MS Office 2013 is indeed quite good.
Unfortunately they supporting only a single version of ODF in a major
office version, while with extensions OOXML is even working back to Office XP.
An interoperability nightmare.
Even worse, when opening a valid ODF 1.2 file in MS Office 2010, it
irritates the user by declaring the document of being corrupt (FUD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt>?).
The reason is that a new version attribute had been added to the ODF spec.
Too expensive to be fixed, they say. Sad that we can not sent them (or a
public source repository) any patches, like we can do for all the ODF
open source. As Microsoft Office is closed source and has a
stronghold on the market. They are able to block the progress.

The problem of interoperability between versions might be fixed in
general by providing free available transitions between the standard
versions (better being part of the standard). It was once ignorant to state that a
format will never change, this is equal to stopping evolution. Instead a
transition must be provided to not break the chain of opening ancient
documents.
Aside of the above unfortunately still most/all standards lack of free
available test suits with a good coverage.
Even for ODF it is not able to determine what features are being
supported by an ODF application and if it covers the feature set of the
documents of the user.

But anyway, by adopting ODF the UK can finally start moving away from Microsoft's
strangling embrace. It is time for an Office Spring!

*Rule, Britannia!*


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Svante Schubert Svante Schubert
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

The deadline for feed-back to the UK was expired till Friday 5pm GMT
(6pm mid-European time) due to the outage of yesterday.

Cheers,
Svante

PS: Regarding spelling mistakes, I copy/pasted my comment earlier in
LibreOffice and used its spell checking ;)


Am 27.02.2014 15:28, schrieb Tom Davies:

> Hi :)
> This is weird!  I still seem to be able to make posts!  I've gone
> through a few of the early FUD ones but only got as far as page 2.  I
> wish i could edit the ones i posted yday because i can see all sorts
> of bad spelling mistakes and problems with grammar.  I think the
> meaning is fairly clear but i wish i had stopped ostriching earlier
> and got someone to proof-read my posts
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
> On 27 February 2014 10:21, Svante Schubert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2014 22:48, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:
>>> ... may be found here:
>>>
>>>  http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/974#comment-974
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>> Very good post!
>>
>> Although I bet the CC on the [hidden email] took the
>> server down last night. ;)
>> Unfortunately I waited with my post till the very end to become the last
>> post it unfortunately got lost.
>>
>> Please allow me to sent my post here instead so the effort was not for
>> nothing and it still might help someone of your marketing:
>>
>>
>> *Rule Britannia!*
>>
>> I would like to thank the Open Standards board for its courage to change
>> the road being taken for decades and aiming for innovation, giving
>> smaller companies an opportunity.
>> I really do hope that there will be no OOXML aside of ODF in the
>> proposal as there is no need for it and I fear it would weaken the
>> ecosystem of transparency.
>> But I have to wish you luck, as there is this saying, that it always seems easier for a company to add
>> another software from Microsoft to its stack than a better alternative (the vicious circle) and an
>> IT manager usually does not risk his job by choosing Microsoft. Not to
>> mention the powerful MS lobby.
>> Still I hope Britain is able to break free as the city of Munich did before.
>> Many good lessons can be learned from Munich, which has proven that even
>> with additional education the use of open-source is cheaper. Now even their
>> approaches and tools can be reused/shared.
>>
>> Regarding innovation I would like to point out an upcoming technical
>> innovation of ODF starting with change-tracking <https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office-collab>. Instead of saving
>> before/after states, changes/operation are being specified and can be
>> used as well for real-time collaboration.
>> Two implementations (WebODF <http://webodf.org/> and OX documents <https://www.ox.io/ox_text>) both open-source <http://git.open-xchange.com/git/office> browser
>> based ODF editors have taken first steps of testing a joined
>> collaboration. Unthinkable that Office365 would do allow collaboration
>> with applications from vendors other than Microsoft.
>>
>> Finally I would like to comment on the promise of Microsoft to the EU <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/dec09/12-16statement.aspx> to
>> support every ODF ISO standard 9 months after its publishing.
>> Although the Microsoft support of ODF 1.1 in MS Office 2010 was only
>> moderate, the support of ODF 1.2 in MS Office 2013 is indeed quite good.
>> Unfortunately they supporting only a single version of ODF in a major
>> office version, while with extensions OOXML is even working back to Office XP.
>> An interoperability nightmare.
>> Even worse, when opening a valid ODF 1.2 file in MS Office 2010, it
>> irritates the user by declaring the document of being corrupt (FUD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt>?).
>> The reason is that a new version attribute had been added to the ODF spec.
>> Too expensive to be fixed, they say. Sad that we can not sent them (or a
>> public source repository) any patches, like we can do for all the ODF
>> open source. As Microsoft Office is closed source and has a
>> stronghold on the market. They are able to block the progress.
>>
>> The problem of interoperability between versions might be fixed in
>> general by providing free available transitions between the standard
>> versions (better being part of the standard). It was once ignorant to state that a
>> format will never change, this is equal to stopping evolution. Instead a
>> transition must be provided to not break the chain of opening ancient
>> documents.
>> Aside of the above unfortunately still most/all standards lack of free
>> available test suits with a good coverage.
>> Even for ODF it is not able to determine what features are being
>> supported by an ODF application and if it covers the feature set of the
>> documents of the user.
>>
>> But anyway, by adopting ODF the UK can finally start moving away from Microsoft's
>> strangling embrace. It is time for an Office Spring!
>>
>> *Rule, Britannia!*
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
>> Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>>


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

In reply to this post by Charles-H. Schulz
Le 26/02/14 04:48 PM, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
> ... may be found here:
>
>   http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/974#comment-974
>
> Best,
>

Nice article by Italo. Thanks to Italo for voicing the qualities of the
ODF!!!

Marc

--
Marc Paré
[hidden email]
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted