Talk:OpenDocument: Difference between revisions
Foolishgrunt (talk | contribs) |
→.odb ?: new section Tags: Disambiguation links added New topic |
||
(34 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=low |free-software=yes |free-software-importance=Mid |software=yes }} |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{afd-merged-from|OpenDocument Foundation|OpenDocument Foundation|12 October 2019}} |
|||
==Untitled== |
|||
Death link: http://std.dkuug.dk/keld/iso26000-odf |
Death link: http://std.dkuug.dk/keld/iso26000-odf |
||
linked text: The OASIS Committee Specification OpenDocument 1.0 (second edition) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.252.55.240|84.252.55.240]] ([[User talk:84.252.55.240|talk]]) 10:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
linked text: The OASIS Committee Specification OpenDocument 1.0 (second edition) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.252.55.240|84.252.55.240]] ([[User talk:84.252.55.240|talk]]) 10:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Free Software|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{Technical|date=September 2010}} |
{{Technical|date=September 2010}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
}}{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60}} |
}}{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60}} |
||
== Simplification == |
|||
== Change to new ODF Icons? == |
|||
⚫ | |||
Hi, I'd like to propose changing the file type icons. |
|||
⚫ | For instance: "After responding to all written ballot comments, and a 30-day default ballot, the OpenDocument International standard went to publication in ISO, officially published November 30, 2006.", what is actually relevant here? Maybe the official date of publication. Many sentences of the article could be simplified and de-obfuscated --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] ([[User talk:Arebenti|talk]]) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)--[[Special:Contributions/79.204.190.26|79.204.190.26]] ([[User talk:79.204.190.26|talk]]) 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
: I recommend moving almost all of the material on standardization to the web page [[OpenDocument_standardization]]. I would keep only a version of the final two paragraphs: 1) that the current version is 1.3 and 2) that there is continuing work. The rest was topical 17 years ago but not now. I will not make any changes myself.[[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 10:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Currently the article uses rather generic text document, spreadsheet and presentation icons from the [http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Library Tango icon library]. |
|||
== OpenOffice.org Calc to MediaWiki == |
|||
I propose to use the ODF icons from the [http://odftoolkit.org/ODF-Icons ODF toolkit]. |
|||
How do I import an [[OpenOffice.org Calc]] spreadsheet to Wikipedia? I want to keep as much formatting as possible. [[User:Morriswa|Allen]] ([[User talk:Morriswa|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
The ODF icons from the toolkit are neutral towards vendor, platform and application. And they express the actual format ODF. |
|||
:Short answer: You can't. Wikipedia has its own wiki table format. See [[Help:Wikitable]] and [[Help:Table]]. However, it can also support, within limits, simple HTML, but don't expect to spit out an HTML file with OpenOffice.org Calc and simply drag it into Wikipedia, as the MediaWiki engine won't understand 80% of the code and you'll have to do significant re-coding of the HTML anyway. — [[User:Hydrargyrum|Quicksilver]]<sup>[[User_talk:Hydrargyrum|T]] [[Special:Emailuser/Hydrargyrum|@]]</sup> 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Any objections? How shall I proceed? |
|||
== Copyright Restrictions == |
|||
Thanks! Lutz. |
|||
--[[User:Laushh|Laushh]] ([[User talk:Laushh|talk]]) 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Just one more piece of information. The ODF icons are available under the Apache License Version 2.0. Is this "free enough" for Wikipedia? --[[User:Laushh|Laushh]] ([[User talk:Laushh|talk]]) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Update: Done. --[[User:Laushh|Laushh]] ([[User talk:Laushh|talk]]) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know if this were better suited to another article but I've just been trying to wrap my head around Sun's patent statement recarding OpenDocument format, specifically: |
|||
== ODF database support == |
|||
'' |
|||
One precondition of any such license granted to a party ("licensee") shall be the licensee's agreement to grant reciprocal Royalty-Free Licenses under its Essential Claims to Sun and other implementers of such specification. Sun expressly reserves all other rights it may have.'' |
|||
Does this mean that a book (or at least a copy of a book's text) written/made available in .odf format falls under a "reciprocal Roaylty-Free License" as well? Or does the liscence only apply to other computer programs implimenting the markup language and not documents created/saved in .odf format? |
|||
Someone has again added an infobox stating that the ODF spec supports databases. There is an archived discussion at [[Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 7#Does ODF really support databases?]] where I'm pretty sure that we decided that it didn't. Shouldn't someone do a good faith revert? [[User:Feedmecereal|Danny]] ([[User talk:Feedmecereal|talk]]) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I went ahead and reverted the good faith edit by the editor that added database infobox. [[User:Feedmecereal|Danny]] ([[User talk:Feedmecereal|talk]]) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I'm currently writing a novel in open office so this means something to me. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.89.94.250|209.89.94.250]] ([[User talk:209.89.94.250|talk]]) 01:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== "Criticism" section == |
|||
== Primary Sources Template == |
|||
As currently noted in the article, several of the criticisms mentioned in this section have been addressed in the newly-adopted ODF 1.2 specification. With that in mind, is there any reason not to remove these (obsolete) criticisms? We don't need any more FUD fodder than we already have, after all. --[[User:Foolishgrunt|Foolishgrunt]] ([[User talk:Foolishgrunt|talk]]) 20:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The preamble to this article invokes the Primary Sources Template which states, "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications.", as if that were a bad thing. However, in the case of an openly developed international standard, I do not think it is a bad thing. It seems to me that the Primary Sources Template is appropriate only when the source in question has some proprietary interest. In standards development, there is plenty of introspection in the process. The output of that process is precisely what _should_ be relied upon. I recommend removing the template. [[User:DrHow|DrHow]] ([[User talk:DrHow|talk]]) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: The reundancy needs to be removed, also in this section. It seems to me criticism actually means feature requests here. I would appreciate to mention better criticism of the format. The structure obfuscates it very much: |
|||
:''OASIS ODF 1.0, 1.1 and ISO/IEC 26300:2006 do not define a definite spreadsheet formula language, syntax or function libraries.[48][49] OASIS ODF 1.0, 1.1 and ISO/IEC 26300:2006 do not define digital signatures.[50]... ODF 1.2, approved as a committee specification by OASIS ODF TC on March 26, 2010, addresses the criticisms regarding digital signatures and standard formula format.[57]'' |
|||
: You see? --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] ([[User talk:Arebenti|talk]]) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:On what basis? Nobody is saying that this is a bad thing - that's the reason why these templates are also called ''maintain boxes''. The template only says that the article relies on primary sources (and not on third party). Either fix the problem or let it as it is. [[User talk:Mabdul|<span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul</span>]] 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, I agree. I'll go ahead and remove the "criticisms" regarding older specifications. I'll also look to see if I can find links to any legitimate criticisms to validate the statements made here. --[[User:Foolishgrunt|Foolishgrunt]] ([[User talk:Foolishgrunt|talk]]) 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It is a formal issue. Means that you have to use an appropriate template, and add the ref information.--[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] ([[User talk:Arebenti|talk]]) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== External links modified == |
||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | For instance: "After responding to all written ballot comments, and a 30-day default ballot, the OpenDocument International standard went to publication in ISO, officially published November 30, 2006.", what is actually relevant here? Maybe the official date of publication. Many sentences of the article could be simplified and de-obfuscated --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] ([[User talk:Arebenti|talk]]) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)--[[Special:Contributions/79.204.190.26|79.204.190.26]] ([[User talk:79.204.190.26|talk]]) 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[OpenDocument]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698642005 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615185541/http://www.ua.es:80/en/rua/formatos.html to http://www.ua.es/en/rua/formatos.html |
|||
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== odf 1.3 == |
|||
odf 1.3 is out. the article is outdated--[[Special:Contributions/2A02:587:4409:2F7F:540A:1598:C962:479E|2A02:587:4409:2F7F:540A:1598:C962:479E]] ([[User talk:2A02:587:4409:2F7F:540A:1598:C962:479E|talk]]) 23:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
See |
|||
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2020/01/21/odf-1-3-approved-as-oasis-committee-specification/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:6D40:3491:A701:51F2:1EAA:35AC:AAF2|2A02:6D40:3491:A701:51F2:1EAA:35AC:AAF2]] ([[User talk:2A02:6D40:3491:A701:51F2:1EAA:35AC:AAF2#top|talk]]) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I agree. I have removed the 'Future' heading so that the part about 1.3 is now simply an item under 'Further standardization'. The same goes for the change-tracking part, and I do not know the status of that. But the 'further' in 'further standardization' is not entirely clear to me anyway. I guess it is just vague enough to allow for any versions to be put under this section... --[[User:MichielN|MichielN]] ([[User talk:MichielN|talk]]) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Off-topic Link == |
|||
The link at the end ''Reactions to Microsoft lobbying at ISO'' is not related to ODF (and has severe problems) and should be removed. I will not remove it. [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 10:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== .odb ? == |
|||
The disambiguation page [[ODB]] claims that ".odb" is a "file extension for OpenDocument format databases", and the [[.odb]] lemma currently links to OpenDocument, however "odb" is not mentioned in the article at all. --[[User:BjKa|BjKa]] ([[User talk:BjKa|talk]]) 15:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:15, 30 January 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the OpenDocument article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
OpenDocument Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 October 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into OpenDocument. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Untitled
[edit]Death link: http://std.dkuug.dk/keld/iso26000-odf linked text: The OASIS Committee Specification OpenDocument 1.0 (second edition) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.55.240 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Simplification
[edit]It makes a lot of sense to me to remove unnecessary details and redundancy because the article does not target a technical audience. For instance: "After responding to all written ballot comments, and a 30-day default ballot, the OpenDocument International standard went to publication in ISO, officially published November 30, 2006.", what is actually relevant here? Maybe the official date of publication. Many sentences of the article could be simplified and de-obfuscated --Arebenti (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)--79.204.190.26 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend moving almost all of the material on standardization to the web page OpenDocument_standardization. I would keep only a version of the final two paragraphs: 1) that the current version is 1.3 and 2) that there is continuing work. The rest was topical 17 years ago but not now. I will not make any changes myself.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
OpenOffice.org Calc to MediaWiki
[edit]How do I import an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet to Wikipedia? I want to keep as much formatting as possible. Allen (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: You can't. Wikipedia has its own wiki table format. See Help:Wikitable and Help:Table. However, it can also support, within limits, simple HTML, but don't expect to spit out an HTML file with OpenOffice.org Calc and simply drag it into Wikipedia, as the MediaWiki engine won't understand 80% of the code and you'll have to do significant re-coding of the HTML anyway. — QuicksilverT @ 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Restrictions
[edit]I don't know if this were better suited to another article but I've just been trying to wrap my head around Sun's patent statement recarding OpenDocument format, specifically: One precondition of any such license granted to a party ("licensee") shall be the licensee's agreement to grant reciprocal Royalty-Free Licenses under its Essential Claims to Sun and other implementers of such specification. Sun expressly reserves all other rights it may have.
Does this mean that a book (or at least a copy of a book's text) written/made available in .odf format falls under a "reciprocal Roaylty-Free License" as well? Or does the liscence only apply to other computer programs implimenting the markup language and not documents created/saved in .odf format?
I'm currently writing a novel in open office so this means something to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.94.250 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Primary Sources Template
[edit]The preamble to this article invokes the Primary Sources Template which states, "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications.", as if that were a bad thing. However, in the case of an openly developed international standard, I do not think it is a bad thing. It seems to me that the Primary Sources Template is appropriate only when the source in question has some proprietary interest. In standards development, there is plenty of introspection in the process. The output of that process is precisely what _should_ be relied upon. I recommend removing the template. DrHow (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- On what basis? Nobody is saying that this is a bad thing - that's the reason why these templates are also called maintain boxes. The template only says that the article relies on primary sources (and not on third party). Either fix the problem or let it as it is. mabdul 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is a formal issue. Means that you have to use an appropriate template, and add the ref information.--Arebenti (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on OpenDocument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615185541/http://www.ua.es:80/en/rua/formatos.html to http://www.ua.es/en/rua/formatos.html
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
odf 1.3
[edit]odf 1.3 is out. the article is outdated--2A02:587:4409:2F7F:540A:1598:C962:479E (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
See
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2020/01/21/odf-1-3-approved-as-oasis-committee-specification/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:3491:A701:51F2:1EAA:35AC:AAF2 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. I have removed the 'Future' heading so that the part about 1.3 is now simply an item under 'Further standardization'. The same goes for the change-tracking part, and I do not know the status of that. But the 'further' in 'further standardization' is not entirely clear to me anyway. I guess it is just vague enough to allow for any versions to be put under this section... --MichielN (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic Link
[edit]The link at the end Reactions to Microsoft lobbying at ISO is not related to ODF (and has severe problems) and should be removed. I will not remove it. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
.odb ?
[edit]The disambiguation page ODB claims that ".odb" is a "file extension for OpenDocument format databases", and the .odb lemma currently links to OpenDocument, however "odb" is not mentioned in the article at all. --BjKa (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- B-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- All Software articles
- B-Class Free and open-source software articles
- Mid-importance Free and open-source software articles
- B-Class Free and open-source software articles of Mid-importance
- All Free and open-source software articles
- All Computing articles