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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

HI :)
+1
I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!!  It was a great "press
release" :))

Almost all the comments, around 80-90% were extremely pro-ODF and
almost all of those were also anti-OOXML.

The 10-20% pro-OOXML comments almost entirely conceded that ODF should
be used but that OOXML should be included, in some cases just for a
restricted period to allow a smoother migration.  ALL such comments
were met with replies that covered;
1.  pointed out that MS Office itself and almost all other office
suites and programs can easily produce or convert to ODF
2.  that having 2 standards made the proposal pointless and a complete
waste of time
3.  that OOXML failed to achieve many of the stated aims of the
proposal especially the aim of allowing everyone to open government
documents without having to pay to buy/rent new versions of software
to do so.
or at least 2 out of 3 of those in some combination or other.  Most
times that was done already by someone other than me but i covered the
few comments that seemed to have been missed by other people.

One common bit of FUD that kept appearing was that people seem to
think each different office suite or program has it's own different
format. That got dealt with quite neatly each time.  A few comments
pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF.  However Google
themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this
proposal to use ODF.

Some stats that i found interesting;

Microsoft's statement had 11,000 words and didn't go against using
ODF, just demanded that OOXML got added as a 2nd format.  1st reply
was quite swift and very critical.  None of the replies supported MS
despite their "call to arms" posted to their partners.  There were a
few fresh posts that quoted and supported them but not many.  Mostly
when it got quoted it was to criticise MS.

TDF's statement had under 900 words
Redhat's had around 500 (i think)

[There were "press release" type comments from other organisations
almost entirely in support of ODF but those were the only 2 that i
really noticed and still remember.]

Google's statement had around 80 words but it was more a response to
other comments rather than the type of press release made by the
others.

Most pro-ODF press releases had replies supporting them and were
quoted elsewhere, particularly the TDF statement which seemed to be
very well received.  (I might be a tad biased there but i was trying
to be objective)

As was pointed out several times the OOXML ISO format's spec ran to
7,000 pages.  The ODF's ISO spec was variously quote as 1,200 or 800
pages.  Either way at least 6 times smaller!

Also it was quite often pointed out that OOXML's promise of
interoperability never seems to have worked in reality and that even
MS Office doesn't seem to use the ISO version of the spec and makes
excuses such as 2007 and 2010 using different "transitional" versions.
 That by contrast the ODF formats have been in use by many for quite a
few years.  Some comments pointed out that the "strict" OOXML in 2013
was not the default and still didn't appear to be the same as the ISO
version.  1 or 2 pointed out that OOXML contains proprietary blobs and
that's why no-one except MS can implement it.


So, i learned TONS from reading other people's comments.  Most of
which i kinda trust because they often explained problems that people
have brought to the Users List or seen or experienced elsewhere
("transitional" vs "strict" for example) and also why it's such a
problem for non-MS suites and programs to implement OOXML reliably.
Of course i'd still need to confirm much of that through external
reading but it gave me a LOT of good starting points to research such
issues.  Also a few posts gave great links to external resources.

All VERY interesting!


Annoyingly the final post of the whole consultation postulated that if
the proposal IS accepted and IF anyone attempted to implement it that
the Uk government might then find itself involved in protracted
court-cases brought on by one of the most powerful companies on the
planet, Microsoft.

My personal opinions on that and the rest ...
So, now we just wait and see if the Uk does dare to accept the
proposal or if the government turns out to be weak and ineffectual.
Based on past performance my guess is that it will crumble and just go
along with supporting MS's apparently (but rarely recognised)
extortionate prices.

However, even if the Uk government does feel to weak to challenge MS
at least we have seen a first attempt by them and maybe in 10 years
time (which is apparently the soonest time they can reassess again)
then it might finally be able to break free then (assuming MS is still
around then).

Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was
made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far
more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest
performance as a result.  Meanwhile other governments that HAVE
ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge
cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result.

Good luck all!
Regards from
Tom :)



On 2 March 2014 06:33, Marc Paré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
>

--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats




> I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!!  It was a great "press
> release" :))

totally agree


>
> A few comments
> pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF.  However Google
> themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this
> proposal to use ODF.

actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for ".docx",".xlsx", .doc. .pdf but not for ".odt,.ods". so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs.
however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF.

as i was saying, both were partially correct.

> Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was
> made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far
> more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest
> performance as a result.  Meanwhile other governments that HAVE
> ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge
> cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result.

amen to that!

regards,

som

--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

Hi :)
Thanks Dr Som :)   I wish i had realised i could edit my own posts
earlier so that when i cringed at some of my own grammar i could have
fixed it on the spot.  Also it might have been good to proof-read
others and maybe get others to proof-read mine.  My one that appeared
just after the official TDF one would have been better elsewhere.  As
it is it's probably going to suffer from "too long; didn't read" and
it repeats some of the things already said much better in the official
post.  On the other hand it does mean all the posts look quite fresh
and lively rather than over-worked.
Thanks and regards from
Tom :)



On 3 March 2014 04:28, som <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
>> I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!!  It was a great "press
>> release" :))
>
> totally agree
>
>
>>
>> A few comments
>> pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF.  However Google
>> themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this
>> proposal to use ODF.
>
> actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for ".docx",".xlsx", .doc. .pdf but not for ".odt,.ods". so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs.
> however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF.
>
> as i was saying, both were partially correct.
>
>> Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was
>> made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far
>> more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest
>> performance as a result.  Meanwhile other governments that HAVE
>> ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge
>> cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result.
>
> amen to that!
>
> regards,
>
> som
>
> --
> 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/users/
> 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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

Hi :)
What worries me now is that the next stage of the process appears to
be that after seeking thoughts from the general populace they then put
it through a panel of 'experts'.  Who chooses these experts and on
what basis?  (that was a rhetorical question)  So, now i can see why
MS made so little effort to post comments in this stage of the
process.  From the Uk Gov's website
http://standards.data.gov.uk/how-we-select-standards

"
How we select standards
Through the Standards Hub anyone can get involved in the process of
prioritising and helping us to select open standards for government
IT.
There are five groups of people involved in selecting and implementing
open standards:

Users
Government technology officials
Challenge owners
Standards panels
Open Standards Board

There are also five phases in our approach:
Suggest
Challenge
Propose
Assess
Implement
"

How likely is it that any of the "Government technology officials" are
committed to MS?  Are any from Redhat, Canonical, FSF, TDF, openSuSE
or anywhere else not completed committed to MS?  There doesn't seem to
be a list of them anywhere nor a list of the criteria that got them
selected in the first place.  Similarly with the "Challenge Owners",
"Standards Panels" (are these selected from among people working on
ISO standards?) and the "Open Standard Board".  For this last group we
finally get a list of names and some minimal disclosure.

"
Open Standards Board - members and biographies

The Board members are:

Liam Maxwell, Government Digital Service (Chair)
John Atherton, Surevine
Alex Brown, Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd
Adam Cooper, Bolton University
Matthew Dovey, Jisc
Paul Downey, Government Digital Service
Lee Edwards, London Borough of Redbridge
Tim Kelsey, NHS England
John Sheridan, The National Archives
Jeni Tennison, Open Data Institute
Chris Ulliott, CESG
"

Without even looking up any of these i can see some that raise alarm.
NHS England is allegedly deeply committed to Microsoft, according to
the comments, having just signed a huge contract with them
(allegedly).  So this person could well even be an employee of MS.
The "Open Data Institute" sounds good but could easily be like the
sort of smoke-screen used in "office open XML".  Also i'm concerned
that the final board there wont even see the original comments and
press releases from the "Users".  If they do there have been 3 layers
of 'experts' groups able to undermine or twist anything posted in this
initial stage.

I'm not sure who to write to about my concerns with the process.  Is
the BoD "on the case" with any of this or does it just stop with the
press release and just a vague hope that it will all magically work
out well?
Regards from
Tom :)



On 4 March 2014 11:41, Tom Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi :)
> Thanks Dr Som :)   I wish i had realised i could edit my own posts
> earlier so that when i cringed at some of my own grammar i could have
> fixed it on the spot.  Also it might have been good to proof-read
> others and maybe get others to proof-read mine.  My one that appeared
> just after the official TDF one would have been better elsewhere.  As
> it is it's probably going to suffer from "too long; didn't read" and
> it repeats some of the things already said much better in the official
> post.  On the other hand it does mean all the posts look quite fresh
> and lively rather than over-worked.
> Thanks and regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2014 04:28, som <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!!  It was a great "press
>>> release" :))
>>
>> totally agree
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A few comments
>>> pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF.  However Google
>>> themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this
>>> proposal to use ODF.
>>
>> actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for ".docx",".xlsx", .doc. .pdf but not for ".odt,.ods". so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs.
>> however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF.
>>
>> as i was saying, both were partially correct.
>>
>>> Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was
>>> made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far
>>> more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest
>>> performance as a result.  Meanwhile other governments that HAVE
>>> ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge
>>> cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result.
>>
>> amen to that!
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> som
>>
>> --
>> 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/users/
>> 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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government consultation on document formats

Hi :)
Wow, just found this link if the BoD are only just starting to get
involved with this
http://standards.data.gov.uk/how-you-can-get-involved-each-phase
Personally i suspect that they were the ones that originally made
several of us aware of this whole proposal so i suspect they ARE "on
the case".  In my previous post i let my own personal fears get the
better of me.  Sorry for that!

Also this link settled me down a bit
http://standards.data.gov.uk/phases-selection-approach
So normal users, like me, CAN be involved in some of the next stages.
It's not necessarily all going to be over-ruled by MS 'experts' who
are probably already carefully placed or by unwittingly dedicated or
committed MS people.


Ok, so it seems to have moved on quite a bit.  The next phase seems to
be closed already!  There seems to have been a next round of comments
or maybe summary points posted already;
http://standards.data.gov.uk/challenge/sharing-or-collaborating-government-documents
click on the "Responses" tab about half-way down the page. The only 3
that worry me so far are
1.  p1  Focus on "get the job done", not "how it's done".
2.  p3  Standardisation mandate
3.  p3  ODF

1.  as per the title.  I'm not sure exactly what is being said here.
Hopefully it's just saying that things in the future should not depend
on how things have been done in the past.
2.  is about macros, specifically demanding a standard be set for them
too (as well as for the document formats).  I think this needs to be
as a separate proposal because if they attempt to bolt-it-on to this
one then it could cause huge delays or even scuper the whole proposal.
 Also it looks like LO, AOO, etc can choose between different
languages for macros while certain other programs cannot.  At the
moment the viability of this whole proposal seems to depend on the
fact that MS Office has finally managed to implement ODF 1.2, just
like everyone else has managed for years.
3.  "Without greater public awareness though, it will be seen as
something that is inaccessible to many due the ubiquity of specific
proprietary products and devices."  I'm not sure about the devices
aspect.  It might be aimed at the CSV component of the proposal but i
worry that it might be turned into an excuse for "needing" to accept
xls or even xlsX from systems such as financial reports/forecasting
and/or weather prediction.

Anyway that is 3 dubious statements out of around 20 or so and even
then they seem mostly pro-ODF.



Another similar proposal seems to be going through at around the same time
http://standards.data.gov.uk/challenge/viewing-government-documents
This seems to focus more on online formats such as html 4.01 and 5 and
on 'the' uneditable format (Pdf) but comments have so far seemed to
focus on suggesting using OpenSource tools and 1 mentioned ODF for
off-line.

Regards from
Tom :)




On 4 March 2014 12:11, Tom Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi :)
> What worries me now is that the next stage of the process appears to
> be that after seeking thoughts from the general populace they then put
> it through a panel of 'experts'.  Who chooses these experts and on
> what basis?  (that was a rhetorical question)  So, now i can see why
> MS made so little effort to post comments in this stage of the
> process.  From the Uk Gov's website
> http://standards.data.gov.uk/how-we-select-standards
>
> "
> How we select standards
> Through the Standards Hub anyone can get involved in the process of
> prioritising and helping us to select open standards for government
> IT.
> There are five groups of people involved in selecting and implementing
> open standards:
>
> Users
> Government technology officials
> Challenge owners
> Standards panels
> Open Standards Board
>
> There are also five phases in our approach:
> Suggest
> Challenge
> Propose
> Assess
> Implement
> "
>
> How likely is it that any of the "Government technology officials" are
> committed to MS?  Are any from Redhat, Canonical, FSF, TDF, openSuSE
> or anywhere else not completed committed to MS?  There doesn't seem to
> be a list of them anywhere nor a list of the criteria that got them
> selected in the first place.  Similarly with the "Challenge Owners",
> "Standards Panels" (are these selected from among people working on
> ISO standards?) and the "Open Standard Board".  For this last group we
> finally get a list of names and some minimal disclosure.
>
> "
> Open Standards Board - members and biographies
>
> The Board members are:
>
> Liam Maxwell, Government Digital Service (Chair)
> John Atherton, Surevine
> Alex Brown, Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd
> Adam Cooper, Bolton University
> Matthew Dovey, Jisc
> Paul Downey, Government Digital Service
> Lee Edwards, London Borough of Redbridge
> Tim Kelsey, NHS England
> John Sheridan, The National Archives
> Jeni Tennison, Open Data Institute
> Chris Ulliott, CESG
> "
>
> Without even looking up any of these i can see some that raise alarm.
> NHS England is allegedly deeply committed to Microsoft, according to
> the comments, having just signed a huge contract with them
> (allegedly).  So this person could well even be an employee of MS.
> The "Open Data Institute" sounds good but could easily be like the
> sort of smoke-screen used in "office open XML".  Also i'm concerned
> that the final board there wont even see the original comments and
> press releases from the "Users".  If they do there have been 3 layers
> of 'experts' groups able to undermine or twist anything posted in this
> initial stage.
>
> I'm not sure who to write to about my concerns with the process.  Is
> the BoD "on the case" with any of this or does it just stop with the
> press release and just a vague hope that it will all magically work
> out well?
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
> On 4 March 2014 11:41, Tom Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> Thanks Dr Som :)   I wish i had realised i could edit my own posts
>> earlier so that when i cringed at some of my own grammar i could have
>> fixed it on the spot.  Also it might have been good to proof-read
>> others and maybe get others to proof-read mine.  My one that appeared
>> just after the official TDF one would have been better elsewhere.  As
>> it is it's probably going to suffer from "too long; didn't read" and
>> it repeats some of the things already said much better in the official
>> post.  On the other hand it does mean all the posts look quite fresh
>> and lively rather than over-worked.
>> Thanks and regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 March 2014 04:28, som <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!!  It was a great "press
>>>> release" :))
>>>
>>> totally agree
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A few comments
>>>> pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF.  However Google
>>>> themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this
>>>> proposal to use ODF.
>>>
>>> actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for ".docx",".xlsx", .doc. .pdf but not for ".odt,.ods". so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not support ODFs.
>>> however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF.
>>>
>>> as i was saying, both were partially correct.
>>>
>>>> Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was
>>>> made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far
>>>> more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest
>>>> performance as a result.  Meanwhile other governments that HAVE
>>>> ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge
>>>> cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result.
>>>
>>> amen to that!
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> som
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/users/
>>> 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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Urmas D. Urmas D.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

In reply to this post by TomD
"Tom Davies":

Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0
and 1.1, or formulas fiasco?
Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO
uses?




--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

pete nikolic pete nikolic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700
"Urmas" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Tom Davies":
>
> Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0
> and 1.1, or formulas fiasco?
> Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO
> uses?
>
>
>
>

Still being paid by M$ Corp i see ..


Tut Tut Tut


Pete .

--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Paul Steyn Paul Steyn
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

In reply to this post by Urmas D.
Do you think [OOXML] stands a chance with its incompatible changes
between [each version], or [standardisation / xsd:boolean] fiasco?
Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions
[MSO] uses?

There, fixed that for you.

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700
"Urmas" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Tom Davies":
>
> Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes
> between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco?
> Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions
> AOO/LO uses?
>
>
>
>


--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

In reply to this post by pete nikolic
Hi :)
Quite.

It was only older versions of MS Office that had problems reading
formulae.  Everyone else was easily able to correctly implement the
800 page specification as set as an ISO standard.

The 11,000 page OOXML ISO standard doesn't appear to have been
correctly implemented by anyone, least of all MS Office.  The
undocumented changes with the various "transitional" versions and
incompatibilities between them seem to create problems, as seen many
times on this mailing-list.

ODF is drawn up by a committee of hundreds of organisations (including
MS) and therefore much less subject to the whimsical nature of a
single profit-making organisation and less able to be made
deliberately incompatible in order to sell more product as appears to
be the case with OOXML implementations.


The Extensions and such are nothing to do with the format at all.
They are to do with the programs that implement the format.
Personally i never use any.  Some people use lots.  [shrugs]  Not a
big deal either way.
Regards from
Tom :)




On 5 March 2014 07:37, pete nikolic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700
> "Urmas" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Davies":
>>
>> Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes between 1.0
>> and 1.1, or formulas fiasco?
>> Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions AOO/LO
>> uses?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Still being paid by M$ Corp i see ..
>
>
> Tut Tut Tut
>
>
> Pete .
>
> --
> 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/users/
> 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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Seymour Jim Seymour
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

In reply to this post by Urmas D.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700
"Urmas" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Tom Davies":
>
> Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes
> between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco?
> Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions
> AOO/LO uses?

Do you think .doc[x] stands a chance with newer versions of proprietary
software having the propensity to re-write existing documents into
formats incompatible with older versions [1]; gratuitously wildly
divergent user interfaces, from version-to-version, that violate all
the tenets of POLA [2], and the per-seat expense of said proprietary
software [3]?

Do you think a Certain Large Software Company's stated goal of
subverting or destroying commodity protocols [4] has been successful?

[1] In a transparent attempt to persuade customers to continue the
    vicious, and expensive, upgrade cycle.
[2] Principle Of Least Astonishment
[3] See: [1]
[4] If you've never seen them: The Halloween Documents:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

Regards,
Jim
--
Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
filtering.  If you reply to this email and your email is
rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
web form at <http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php>.

--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Urmas D. Urmas D.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

"Jim Seymour":

>  proprietary software

Irrelevant.

> having the propensity to re-write existing documents into
formats incompatible with older versions [1];

Impossible.

> gratuitously wildly divergent user interfaces

Document formats cannot have UI.


--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Virgil Arrington Virgil Arrington
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...

In reply to this post by Jim Seymour
Jim,

I just have to ask.

Are you the same Jim Seymour who used to do battle with John Dvorak in
the PC magazines?

Virgil


On 3/5/2014 7:50 AM, Jim Seymour wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:31:06 +0700
> "Urmas" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Davies":
>>
>> Do you think ODF stands a chance with its incompatible changes
>> between 1.0 and 1.1, or formulas fiasco?
>> Or the lack of documentation and a heap of undocumented extensions
>> AOO/LO uses?
> Do you think .doc[x] stands a chance with newer versions of proprietary
> software having the propensity to re-write existing documents into
> formats incompatible with older versions [1]; gratuitously wildly
> divergent user interfaces, from version-to-version, that violate all
> the tenets of POLA [2], and the per-seat expense of said proprietary
> software [3]?
>
> Do you think a Certain Large Software Company's stated goal of
> subverting or destroying commodity protocols [4] has been successful?
>
> [1] In a transparent attempt to persuade customers to continue the
>      vicious, and expensive, upgrade cycle.
> [2] Principle Of Least Astonishment
> [3] See: [1]
> [4] If you've never seen them: The Halloween Documents:
>      http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
>
> Regards,
> Jim


--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Seymour Jim Seymour
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

This isn't the droid you're looking for (was: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: The Document Foundation's response to Her Majesty's Government...)

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:42:20 -0500
Virgil Arrington <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I just have to ask.
>
> Are you the same Jim Seymour who used to do battle with John Dvorak
> in the PC magazines?
[snip]

Been quite a few years since I got this question.

That could be only if I was emailing from the beyond:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,613757,00.asp

No, thankfully, I'm a different Jim Seymour entirely.

Beside our current positions relative to the Earth's surface, there are
several other differences...

That Jim Seymour was a big guy.  So am I, but mostly vertically, rather
than, well... sideways.

That Jim Seymour had hair.  Me?  Not so much... anymore.  (But mine was
curly, like his, when I had it.)

That Jim Seymour liked MS-Win PCs.  Me?  *cough*  Not so much, and we'd
best leave it at that ;)

Regards,
Jim
--
Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
filtering.  If you reply to this email and your email is
rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
web form at <http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php>.

--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Virgil Arrington Virgil Arrington
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This isn't the droid you're looking for

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that *the* Jim Seymour had
passed. (Shows how long it's been since I looked at a PC magazine.) But,
you write so knowledgeably about computers that I naturally assumed that
you were he.

Virgil


On 3/5/2014 11:26 AM, Jim Seymour wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:42:20 -0500
> Virgil Arrington <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I just have to ask.
>>
>> Are you the same Jim Seymour who used to do battle with John Dvorak
>> in the PC magazines?
> [snip]
>
> Been quite a few years since I got this question.
>
> That could be only if I was emailing from the beyond:
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,613757,00.asp
>
> No, thankfully, I'm a different Jim Seymour entirely.
>
> Beside our current positions relative to the Earth's surface, there are
> several other differences...
>
> That Jim Seymour was a big guy.  So am I, but mostly vertically, rather
> than, well... sideways.
>
> That Jim Seymour had hair.  Me?  Not so much... anymore.  (But mine was
> curly, like his, when I had it.)
>
> That Jim Seymour liked MS-Win PCs.  Me?  *cough*  Not so much, and we'd
> best leave it at that ;)
>
> Regards,
> Jim


--
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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted