Talk:OpenDocument

Sunlight is the best antiseptic

Dialoging with trolls is a futile endeavor. I guess I couldn't put this better, so I'll leave it up to Rob Weir of OASIS. Not that Wikipedia would deem the co-chair of OASIS as having any say on the matter.

"My advice would be to seek out official information on the standards, from the relevant organizations, like OASIS, the chairs of the relevant committees, etc. Ask the questions in public places and seek a public response. That is the ultimate weakness of FUD and lies. They cannot stand the light of public exposure. Sunlight is the best antiseptic",

Viralmeme (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CALC uses an unknown draft

"Newer implementations like OpenOffice.org 3.x Calc use an unknown draft OpenFormula specification", from the main article ..

How did OpenOffice manage to produce Calc that could read to this 'unknown draft' and how did they manage to keep it secret, even though the full source code is available?Viralmeme (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Calc is using Openfomula. This is a format still being developed. This means only draft version of the format exist. Calc is probably based on some draft version from early 2008. It will not contain any changes made in de eight or so draft versions released after that. The OpenOffice documentation or site does not show what draft specification is actually used. It is very hard to be interoperable with an implemetation of an unknown format version. hAl (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So shouldn't that be 'Calc use a draft OpenFormula specification', and where does it say on the OASIS website that it's a 'draft version' Viralmeme (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only draft versions exist. You can find them here (State= "draft"). They are all versioned by date. Nor the OOo documentation or the OOo site states which draft version of OpenFormula is used in OOo 3.x. Knowing what format veriosn is used in OOo is important for interoperability especially if other implmentations will start to use different versions. hAl (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FUD Alert! While you are certainly correct that only draft versions exist. Only draft versions have existed for 5 years. I quote "OpenDocument is the first format spec to include a formula specification. Contrary to what this myth might suggest, no format specification before OpenDocument format included an open specification for spreadsheet formulas. The lack of a formula specification in OpenDocument 1.0 was not an aberration. Rather, the OpenDocument community was the first in history to recognize the need for a formula specification, and wanted to ensure that it was done well. As such, we are at the forefront of the development of Open Standards. This need was first discussed in the OpenDocument TC in 2004, and it was agreed that it would be valuable (and that it would need to be done separately). The first draft of OpenFormula was released in February 2005, and was informally developed through the interaction of many in the community of OpenDocument users and application developers. OASIS formally established the formula subcommittee on February 2006; the subcommittee uses the OpenFormula project's specification as their base document. " [1] Here is the "unknown specification [2] You'll notice it is over three years old. It has certainly never been unknown or secret. There are many publications speaking of it, and it is being developed by committee members. Additionally, it is available for anyone to download. Certainly, the comment from the main article is glaring FUD. As, far as what version Open Office is using, look to the feature freeze date and then get the closest version. Or simply ask or look to the code.--Celtic hackr (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You claim FUD but actually you confirm the information in the article. Firstly in confirming that the open formula spec is still in draft (and has been for years) and secondly that you do not seem to know which draft version OOo is using either. It would be of no use if I were to research the source code. That would not be very encyclopic. I would be better if OpenOffice stated which version of OpenFormula they are using. that would also allow for verification of their implementation and more importent for identifying differences with future implementations that will use an official standard version. It is actually not good that the main ODF implementation does not say which version fo the specifcations it is using. And in those three years of development with many new draft versions the format could have changed significantly. hAl (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Implementations

There are no indications in the article of which version of the standard are supported and implemented completely and consistently by which software offerings. As far as I am aware, OpenOffice supports one version of the OASIS specification but not the ISO standard. The Microsoft Office 2007 plug-in for ODF supports the ISO standard but not the OASIS specification, and so forth.

It would be valuable to have a table indicating which software supports which specification and which version thereof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.124.154 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sun's Patent Pledge

The recent addition of Sun's patent pledge as "criticism" seems strange to me, especially as the person who instigated the pledge in the first place. The pledge can only apply to things Sun has been involved in reviewing, so it is no surprise that Sun should state that Sun would not extend the pledge beyond the boundary of its involvement. Since future versions could be expected to build on earlier versions, and since earlier versions would continue to be covered by the pledge, this essentially means that Sun doesn't agree to hold blameless inclusion of new stuff in versions it's not involved in. It does not mean that in the case of Sun's non-involvement all protection is withdrawn, as the anonymous author seems to imply. Does anyone have any evidence to support the assertion this is a widely-held criticism - there is no attribution in the text. Webmink 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a troll. Although, if I were a troll, I'd say that, so I'm not sure that adds anything. I put it in becasue I had seen the criticism here: http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/ - see the section titled "OOXML hoax 2: The standard is not really open". The issues raised there may be open to criticism, but I thought it worthwhile including. What's the rebuttal? WLD^talk|edits 13:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The rebuttal is as above. The covenant is not terminated if Sun leaves the OASIS committee, but the covenant stops being extended to new additions. I'd be happy to re-word it but I gather Wikipedia doesn't like input from primary sources. Webmink 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The key point you make is "The covenant is not terminated if Sun leaves the OASIS committee, but the covenant stops being extended to new additions." - perhaps I'm just being dense, but I don't see that in Sun's Patent Statement. It says that Sun "will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification". That says nothing about later specs. Perhaps I'm just being over-suspicious, but it seems to me that Sun could enforce patents that it doesn't enforce against v1.0 against a later spec - e.g v3.17 or whatever. I'd prefer your interpretation, but my natural suspicion makes me think otherwise. I'm sure the wording has been subject to very careful legal approval. WLD^talk|edits 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with legal documents - when discussed by non-specialists (I am bravely assuming that category includes you) it's easy to make assumptions that are wrong. We have each made interpretations that lead to different conclusions, and prima facie they are equally likely. The only thing that makes mine more likely than yours is that I was involved in the publication of the covenant and I asked the lawyers who wrote it exactly this question at the time of publication. Whatever you feel about this, however, I assert that the existing text is not NPOV and needs modification. Webmink 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to use that well-worn acronym, IANAL, so you are safe there. How best could the text be improved to reflect our two prima facie conclusions? Note that I'd be happy to link to something that explicitly supports your view, just as a link to "The Wraith"'s web log is at present. I'm not particularly happy at linking to a 'blog, but I've not found a better exposition of the position. As far as I'm concerned, I think as much valid criticism of ODF as possible should be included in the article as that can only help the cause of clarity. It's a bit of a Nietzschien approach - that which does not destroy ODF makes it stronger! WLD^talk|edits 13:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue was already worded in the last sentence of the licensing section. I'm not sure it warrants a seperate place in the critisisms. I shows that ODF future version are as much Sun dependant as futere OOXML version are MS dependant. It just shows that openness always has it's limits. hAl 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting) The more I think about it, the more I think it should be there. OOXML is criticised by many for not being 'open' and 'freely implementable' when the same criticisms can (and should) be levied against ODF. If Sun gets into severe business difficulties (and there are many precedents for large technology companies getting into business difficulties), then non-participation in producing a new version of ODF standards allows them to start using their intellectual property portfolio as a revenue generator - much like Unisys did with GIF and the Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression algorithm. A clear expression from Sun saying that they would not seek to enforce intellectual property rights on any 'technology' used in any ODF version (developed with their participation) in any future version (not developed with their participation) would help. For example, if ODF 1.0 used method 'foobar' patented by Sun, the current wording means that Sun can enforce rights in relation to 'foobar' in ODF 3.7 if Sun have not participated in 3.7's development. All they simply need to say is that any technology used in a version developed with the aid of Sun can be freely used in a later version not developed with the aid of Sun, but any new technologies in later versions not developed by Sun are susceptible to litigation. I think open, freely implementable standards are a good thing, but it looks like ODF may, possibly, not be as open as some people believe. I could be being overly cautious here. I wish it were possible to uninvent software patents and business method patents. WLD^talk|edits 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose that the Wikipedia article on the U.S. Constitution should have a criticism stating that there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that prevents a future Constitutional Convention from reintroducing slavery? This seems to be the logic here. There is a standard called ODF now and today, and this criticism does not seem to be about anything that is actually in ODF. You might as well complain that there is nothing that prevents a future version of ODF from forbidding the letter 'e' in text or font point sizes greater than 20, or dotted lines in presentations. In fact, maybe a future version of ODF will be turned into a recipe for cherry cheesecake. There are an infinite number of possible criticisms of unwritten future versions of ODF, and none of these criticisms can be refuted. But such unfounded speculations seem to belong more to a horoscope than an encyclopedia. I'd like to think that criticisms are based on some minimal threshold of plausibility, based on more than an unsubstantiated anonymous blog postings. RCWeir 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your view of the logic is skewed. It is quite simple: all Sun needs to say is that any of Sun's technology used in a version developed with the aid of Sun can be freely used in any later version not developed with the aid of Sun. That is not what Sun have said. It is quite interesting from a legal point of view, as the statement, in its current form, seems to work against a defence of laches being used by someone should Sun prosecute. Note: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice - it's just an area of interest for me. It is anough of an issue for Webmink to have taken this up with Sun's lawyers. Webmink was happy with the reply, but is unable to add it (it's probably not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense, anyway) - so I would content that it is a substantive issue. You have to look at what Sun have officially said, and a statement written with the explicit involvement of lawyers will have been very carefully crafted, as lawyers are experts in precise language. What commentators say they believe about Sun's intentions when the statement is made doesn't really help - you have to look at the actual text and see what meanings are compatible with what is written. Of course any future version of ODF could be turned into anything, but that is not the point, and irrellevant to the point I am making - that (a) Sun are unlikely to participate in all future versions of ODF and (b) any future version definied without the help of Sun cannot use Sun's technology, even if it has already been used in a previous version (dependant on lifetime limits on patents/copyright or other intellectual property used). It's the even if it has already been used in a previous version that is the kicker. I hope that is clear. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 08:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because ODF is mentioned as being an alternative for OOXML for even Microsoft. How could Microsoft commit to using a format where possible control of the future versions development is in the hands of a competitor with it's own Office suite. The same of course applies to OOXML where MS controls future development using it's intellectual property. This argument show that there can be very valid reasons for more than one format. hAl 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like original research. That doesn't belong here. Analysis in an anonymous blog posting of unknown expertise can hardly be considered reliable, especially when we have on-the-record public expert statements that say the ODF license is fine, for example: this review by the SFLC. So, on one hand, you have the General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and Professor of Law at Columbia, saying that the license is fine (interesting that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention this), and on the other hand you have an anonymous blogger called The Wraith who thinks there are problems. And which statement do you go with? The anonymous blogger, of course. But my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that this criticism should attributable to a reliable source, and I don't see that here. RCWeir 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm being particularly dense but having read the SFLC review, I don't believe it supports you to the extent that you say. The Licensing section of the article says "Key contributor Sun Microsystems made an irrevocable intellectual property covenant, providing all implementers with the guarantee that SUN will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the OpenDocument specification." (My emphasis), but I can't see that being said in either

• the Patent Statement [3], or
• the SFLC review [4], or
• the OASIS intellectual property rights policy [5] referenced in the SFLC review.

Sun's patent statement specifically references version 1.0 of the specification, "or [...] any subsequent version thereof [...] in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation [...]", and the OASIS intellectual property rights policy does not force licensing of subsequent versions - the "Continuing Licensing Obligation" applies only to the specification version developed with the aid of the contributing member. That is, if Sun withdraw from OASIS now, Version 1.0 of ODF will continue to be covered by Sun's Patent Statement. Nowhere is there stated to be an obligation to license patents used in v1.0 in subsequent versions. Read it yourself. I would love to be wrong. The SFLC review references back to Sun releasing the StarOffice source under the LGPL and says "The LGPL required Sun to license any patents covering ODF in a manner “consistent with the full freedom of use specified in [the LGPL].”". I'm not conversant enough with the LGPL to say whether or not patent licensing can be version dependant - i.e. Allowing Version 1.0 of foobar licensed under the LGPL to use patented software means that all subsequent versions of foobar licensed under the GPL can also use the patented software. It is by no means clear. And if you point out that OASIS requires a perpetual licence, that's actually not relevant - it simply means that V1.0 of ODF is licensed in perpetuity, not that all subsequent versions of ODF are. Why did Sun specifically reference only ODF 1.0 when it would have been easy (and very clear) to add "and all subsequent versions."? I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to get one to conduct a review on this specific topic. It is, however, crucially important to businesses looking to use ODF in the long term. Why move from Microsoft controlled formats to what may potentially be Sun controlled formats? ODF 1.0 is safe, that much is clear, which is far, far better than nothing. I've said my piece, and if you have done, thank-you for reading. I really don't want to be labelled as a nut-job who is capable only of playing a one-note samba on this topic - I've got other things to do, and as RCWeir points out, this may well be construable as Original Research, so I'll just toddle off into the sunset. Cheerio. WLD^talk|edits 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is odd since I also haven't seen this anywhere else except on Wikipedia (paging Reliable Sources needed on this). Why would Sun need to donate unknown patents to an unknown process if they're not involved in it; is that unreasonable? Should their patents on unrelated things be a free for all? The wording of "If Sun does not participate, then the assurance not to seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation will not apply" makes it seem like a very valid threat, which contradicts the article itself! E.g., earlier, "Key contributor Sun Microsystems made an irrevocable intellectual property covenant, providing all implementers with the guarantee that Sun will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the OpenDocument specification. This Statement is not an assurance that an OpenDocument Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party." I don't see how this is malicious as the criticism seems to be.AnyPhish02 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is simple. It's because the people who are paid by Microsoft to make up false claims about their competitors say so. --192.82.104.3 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New sections

Could we get a section on the history of the format. It seems similar to OpenOffice.org 1.0 files and it'd be good to see whether those in turn were the file format from StarDivision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.160.118.227 (talk) 11:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Math

This criticism is listed in the article:

• Some mathematicians do not think that the choice of the MathML W3C standard for use in OpenDocument is a good choice. MathML is a W3C recommendation for the "inclusion of mathematical expressions in Web pages" and "machine to machine communication" that has been around since about 1999. However, most mathematicians continue to use the much older TeX format as their main method for typesetting complex mathematical formulae. TeX is not an ISO standard, but is fully documented and is the de facto standard for typesetting mathematical expressions. OpenDocument is also criticized for not using the ISO 12083:1994 standard for mathematical formulae, which is not used within MathML either. MathML has a few issues with representing mathematical formulae correctly compared to other methods like TeX.

I don't understand this. MathML and TeX serve different purposes as far as I understand (I'm a long-time LaTeX user, and fairly green on ODF or MathML). TeX is a convenient input format and an excellent typesetting algorithm, but it can be a bit ambiguous if you'd ever want to use a computer to automatically evaluate an expression. For example, does the letter i represent sqrt(-1) or just any integer number? The MathML standard allows a human-writable "annotation" element, e.g. this is how OpenOffice stores a simple equation in an ODF document:

<math>
  <math:semantics> 
     ... lots of MathML gibberish ...
     <math:annotation  math:encoding="StarMath 5.0">( a + b ) over (c^2 + d)</math:annotation>
  </math:semantics>
</math>

Indeed, the MathML spec gives an example[6] with

<math:annotation math:encoding="TeX">...</math>

So the real question is whether ODF allows TeX encoding rather than StarMath-5.0 encoding. If the answer is yes, then this criticism should be deleted (especially since it is unreferenced). If the answer is no, then this criticism should be rewritten. According to the odf spec[7], ODF simply incorporates MathML 2.0 without further restrictions, so I think the answer is yes. Han-Kwang (t) 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say kind of the same. It's pretty clear to me that MathML and TeX serve pretty different purposes. TeX was created to be typed directly, and only to typeset math. There is no way to know if some text was typeset in roman because it's an operator, or because it's text. MathML allows different elements for this different purposes: <mo> and <mtext>. Also, in the MathML faq, it's pretty clear that MathML and TeX serve different purposes (see syntax and technical issues). 80.32.129.34 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a mathematician. MATHML was supposed to provide a standard for mathematics markup on the web. It is a dismal failure! Instead of listening to mathematicians and producing something sensible and latexlike that would do the job, they tried to reinvent the wheel and basically botched it. Mathematics markup on the web is just as problematic today as it was when MATHML was introduced, as evidenced by the fact the fact that wikipedia has had to invent its own mathematics markup language to do the job that MATHML was supposed to do. Apologists for MATHML now like to claim that it was never intended to do this job. They lie! They also dwell on ambiguities in mathematical typography - is dx a differential or d times x - as if this was an important issue! In fact it is an irrelevancy. There are NO tools in existence capable of using the semantic distinctions they claim are so vitally important that they override any considerations of usability. I cannot overstate my hatred for this putrid standard which has completely ruined any chance of our having decent mathematical markup natively implemented on the web for at least a generation. I am very unhappy at the incorporation of MATHML into ODF. It has resulted in the ridiculous situation that the ISO standard for typesetting mathematics into documents is something that almost no mathematician would ever use. The only saving grace is that programs like openoffice use their own (latexlike) mathematical scripting language for input which is then converted to MATHML for storage. However noone has ever managed to adequately explain to me why we don't just use the reasonably sensible scripting language used to input the mathematics instead!Hawthorn (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for all that I strongly dislike MATHML (see above to guage the depths of my dislike), I do find it odd that criticism of MATHML should appear here and not on the MATHML page. The MATHML page is to my eye unrelentingly positive to the point of seeming unbalanced, and completely lacks a criticism section of its own. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move criticism of MATHML to the actual MATHML page where it might provide some much needed balance? Hawthorn (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A reference to TeX not providing semantic markup is in this paper, which also suggests a solution, STeX, or Semantic Tex. This paper also contains a good description of the strengths and weaknesses of both MATHML and Tex. This would provide a citation for the statement "TeX is useful only for typesetting", although a more nuanced approach would be to remove that sentence altogether, and just putting this citation adjacent to the previous statement. Tex has other values, such as the entire infrastructure which has been built around Tex/Latex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.189.57 (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

XML created and developed by Open Office?

The second paragraph of the article makes a claim that OpenOffice.org created and implemented the XML file format, yet I have found no evidence to support this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.239.101 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be because XML is not a file format, but a language and no -- Openoffice.org did not create the ODF format (in it's current inception), but it was among the first to implement it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.20.61 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of OpenDocument article

hAl reports the following text that comes from a dense document. I believe it was taken out of context and needs more work. The reporting by hAl is evidently biased.

The president of the OpenDocument foundation stated that Opendocument does not adress the three 'big problems' facing any transition of documents applications and processes in Microsoft formats to XML whereas OOXML, being created by Microsoft, is inteded to do just that..

Those problems are:

• Compatibility with existing documents-file formats: including the volumes of MS binary documents.

• Interoperability with existing applications: including the over 500 million MSOffice-bound workgroups.

• Convergence of desktop, server, device, and web systems as fluid and highly interoperable routers of documents, data, and media. Also know as "Grand Convergence.

He blames it on the “two ODF groups”: one pro-OOXML and the other pro-ODF.

Simosx 18:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the readdition of this piece by hAl, because I thought it was not less, but maybe even more biased than it'd been before.

Then it was re-added by a newly-registered user Jimb1234, who might be a sockpuppet: while the first edit is correct, this other one is suspicious (and the comment doesn't look like a new user's comment). I've reverted it, but I have to admit that the user has made it a little less biased. Only a little, though, so I believe it should still be discussed first.

--AVRS 11:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand. This is very newsworthy article with info coming from the Opendocument foundation and the text is a near copy from a relvant part of the article. How is a text copied from an article biased? Or is the Opendocument foundation an unreliable source? Jimb 1234 12:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about reliability of the source. The info is notable, but it has to be worded in a way that does not change the meaning. Let's see what Simosx says. --AVRS 12:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I mention above, the referenced text is dense, and not similar to other text available. Taking a segment out of it and pasting it here is a poor choice. Not only that, I also see bias in the addition. The original text says that OpenDocument was not designed to address those issues. The addition here changes the text to OpenDocument does not address. Simosx 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

@Jimb 1234: You are a new user to Wikipedia, you dive in a complex issue, you focus only on document formats, and you tend to make a familiar type of typos (relvant instead of relevant, nname instead of name). Have you been here before? Simosx 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you think it was taken out of context (weird because it is the essential part of what Gary Edwards is saying) and needs more work. But even tehn you should not revert the edit to remove it complelty fro mthe article. It is ridiculous that you are applying some kind of censorship on correctly referenced information because you think it might be taken out of context. If you think the citation is not up to scratch than change the citation appropriatly but by removing it you effectivly censor it from the article. You stated it needs work but I do not see you or anyone else applying changes to the article nor do I see any indication that the information is not correct or does not belong in the article. It is even referred here by AVRS as a notable comment so it does belong in the article. I will reinstate the comment and if you think I have not properly phrased the comment you (or anyone else) are welcome to change and improve it. hAl 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but neither Gary Edwards or the OpenDocument Foundation are related to the process. All they have is the popular ODF-name (the OpenDocument Alliance is those that does something), a vapoware-plugin (there was never a release or sourcecode, or?) and an own opinion. So, for me it sounds like a matter of relevance since if we would start to add opinions from everybody around rather then to concentrate on facts, then we would turn an encyclopedia into a bulletin board, or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.198.170 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What Edwards wrote appears now to amount to a rant. As I mention above, it is better to see other sources analyzing the text. If the text is notable, others will pick it up. Actually, there is one such article on the Edwards text which shows a different perspective. Considering that article it is easy to see that this edit is obsolete. Simosx 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What worries me is that any edits by hAl on Wikipedia appear to be heavily biased as if he has a personal vendetta. Simosx 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Talking about a personal vendetta. When I make an edit on the Office Open XML article on gnumeric adoption using a reference to the gnumeric website you change that to a link to an IBM blogger and when I amke an edit here on a comment made by the opendocument foundation you refer to an articel by the same IBM blogger. Why are you running after my edits using original sources and changing those edits to IBM sources that say the opposite form what I am saying. An IBM blogger is clearly a more biased source then the Gnumeric website or an published interview with the foundation president. You are talking of bias but it is like you are full of it. If the president of the Opendocument foundation and one of the two most participating members of the Opendocument committee in OASIS makes a critical comment on ODF that is quite relevant tot the article. However you are burying the information in a creepy kind of way as it seems several people are making edits in this and the OOXML article to highlight IBM views only and censor the opinion of someone important in development and standaridzation of ODF. Apperantly IBM has taken over the open office scene in a big way and their reach is now on wikipedia killing of other views ... hAl 20:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I already answered both your questions. For the first part (see MSOOXML Talk page), you put a ref to gnumeric while it was superfluous because the same line has a link to the Wikipedia Gnumeric page. For the second part, the answer is above. Simosx 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The second part is not an answer at all. If one of the most influential people on OpenDocument developement and standardisation critisises OpenDocument you bury the info and revert edits on calling it a rant allthough this is not the first time Gary Edwrds was critical on the ODF development and the OASIS TC. You need a better explanation for why to remove then just calling it a rant as it is obvious that this is not his first time the Opendocument foundation that has been a part of the OASIS TC has uttered strong critisism. hAl 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When speaking of "personal vendettas", recent posts from Rob Weir on his blog, taken up and commented by groklaw [8] show that Microsoft seems to have some people try to distort the wikipedia ODF article, and use this article in negotiations with governments who are in the process of deciding which format to use in future, ODF or MSOOXML. ANY PERSONS WITH A RELATIONSHIP TO MICROSOFT: PLEASE CUT IT OUT, DO NOT SPREAD YOUR FUD ON WIKIPEDIA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.211.152 (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless criticism / OR

I removed the criticism about the fact that Sun patent promise applies only with Sun participation: The Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement applies to any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications, or of any subsequent version of the format thereof only if Sun Microsystems participates in development of the subsequent standard version. This was re-added with the following justification: Sun might not participate in a future version which would render their covenant useless. This should not be in this section : First, the source is by Sun corp. itself, so it cannot be stated as a critic. Writing that it is a critic is a clear violation of WP:OR: If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Second (but my first argument itself should make the whole critic be removed): Nobody can promise anything on which they don't participate, which makes us going back to the first argument: it can not be listed as a critic. I don't want to be engaged in an edit war, so I will not remove it myself, but I engage who have added this to do it of his own will. Now if somebody can find a reliable source that takes this fact and state it as a critic, I'm fine with that, even if this would be a pointless critic. Hervegirod (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. It should not be in the critisism section and I removed it from there. hAl (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks !! Hervegirod (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Fact tags

With this edit [9] I placed 2 {{fact}} tags. One has been removed without a reference. Without a reference the line "however unlike the OSP license from Microsoft that also covers partial and imperfect implementations" is believed to be original research WP:OR. A reference comparing the two licenses is required. The simple link to the license at the end of the section is not good enough. If a reference comparing the OSP and IBM's license cant be found the claim will need to be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I already told you that the citation is in the OSP article which is properly wikified in this article. You can find it there and read it. There is not need to overrefence this article to satisfy your edit warring efforts against me. I see you have now been following my edits of mine in several articles either reverting them or needlessly asking for citations. I find your behaviour becoming more offensive towards me every day since you have been outed as the sockpuppeteer on my talk page. Stop this behaviour of following my contribution page to edit wafr against me. hAl (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the article needed a reference. By placing a {{fact}} tag, I am challenging the claim. Any editor can request a reference if they see a need for it. You needed to place a reference that compared the OSP to the IBM licensing. Without it , it reads as original research. Since you have removed the fact tag again, I have removed the claim. Please do not replace the statement without a reference. I was being nice and placed the {{fact}} tag in the first place to give other editors a chance to place a reference. You can not place information together that is not referenced together, you can not analyze 2 licenses and place the differences in a claim without a reference. That is original research WP:OR .

Secondly, Every single article on Wikipedia is open to be edited by any editor. You do not own articles, you do not own Wikipedia, you can not dictate to other editors which articles they can and can not edit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I have say? I noticed that HAl (talk · contribs) had placed a note in the edit summary of his edits indicating where he had gotten a reference from, however, references belong in the article, not the edit summary. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The information HAl has given in the edit summary is that the information about the OSP is in the OSP article. That doesn't help. What we need is a 3rd party reference that does the analyzing of whats in the OSP, whats in the IBM license, and compares them. Otherwise it is original research WP:OR. If he has such a reference, he should have added it when he removed the {{fact}} tag. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Licensing

Why is IBM's contribution of spreadsheet documentation a "key contribution"? As the reference says, OASIS are using the OpenFormula draft as the basis for the standard: David Wheeler just puts it that the Lotus 1-2-3 files will accelerate this.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "unlike the OSP license from Microsoft that also covers partial and imperfect implementation" is difficult to read: Indeed, I first read it as claiming that OSP did not allow partial implementations. However, the reverse is just as misleading: the fact is that the ODF conformance requirements are very general. I think the comment makes something small appear bigger than it is, so I have altered it.(talk) 08:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Suppose y'all already know...

...but the article needs to be updated to reflect Office2K7 SP2's increased support for ODF. I almost did it myself, but since I know nothing about ODF, figured better to drop a line here for the folks who tend the article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some note about serious interoperability observations that doesn't exist with other implementaions should be mentioned, as can be seen in following comparisons:

• http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html
• http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html 131.227.111.136 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Weir's tests of interoperability used an unreleased beta version of Symphony, instead of the current release version. If you use the current release version of Symphony, it has the same interoperability problems with OpenOffice 3 that MS Office does when it comes to spreadsheets. Here is acknowledgment of this problem from Lotus.

• http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/symphonyForum.nsf/0/3FB96BB3A0D22C3B8525751D0026A471?open Tim.the.bastard (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy also that both Gnumeric (Gnome Office) en KSpread (KOffice) can actually read Excel produced ODF spreadsheet files with the ISO/IEC 29500 based spreadsheet language whereas OOo and OOo derivatives like IBM Symphony can't. hAl (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird citation

Weird citation request by user:Scientus

This is from a previous version fo the article:

OpenFormula is expected to be included in ODF 1.2.

Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 re-uses the formula format specified in ISO/IEC 29500

A claim of suspected Micrsoft advertisement relating to Openformule being included in ODF 1.2 ? hAl (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

interoprability guilines in MS Office SP2

Someone added a 3rd party blog post on a workshop a a supposed stament on behalve of Microsoft. I removed it because it was a blog post with not an exact accurate stament but an interpretated statement

For a direct MS comment on that interoperability guidelines read this MS blogpost: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2008/08/05/guiding-principles-for-office-s-odf-implementation.aspx The more exact context of these interoperability principles seems out of place in the above article. as it does not particularly apply to spreasheet formulas. hAl (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce invalid ODF files

A citation on above was questioned beause of claimed lack of valid source related to verifiability. The cited tekst however described in detail how conformance of ODF on the IBM and Symphony files was tested and the tested ODF files created by Symphony and OOo which are publicly present on the blog of Rob Weir who is also used several times as a source on this article. so the test is repeatable and the test ed files are availalbe on an already used source in the article. The cited conformance tests are therefore repeatable en verifiable.

A blog is not a verifiable source when it is producing opinion or making unverifiable claims. However when the blog writer is identifiable and the information is factual (as in you can check it yourself) or is verifiable (you can verify claimed result by repeating the same thing that the blog has doen) the information can be of value for wikipedia.

Article text + citation:

IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce invalid ODF files. hAl (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So why is the fact that certain implementations are buggy a valid comment to put here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.181.153 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The cited article only tested for conformance of the spreadsheet format. I think this sentence, if it is to be kept, should be re written to claim that 'IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce non conforming ODF spreadsheet files' ThePilgrim (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Im still curious as to why this statement needs to be here. In that case all Wiki articles about software products should list all the bugs that those product have. If the statement is to be kept, it should indicate which versions of said programs have the bug. Further, what does "invalid" mean in this context? Can the program read the ODF file just fine? If so, the statement needs to be weakened as it seems to be implying that the output file is in some way "bad" 99.246.181.153 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Brown is not a reliable source on OOXML or ODF [10]. He has been repeatedly accused of spreading FUD on these two standards[11][12]. Hervegirod (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am a reliable source on OOXML and ODF -- whether you choose to recognise that is reflects on your judgement, not mine. Yes, I am "repeatedly accused" of all kinds of things - whether you choose to believe hearsay allegation defines, in part, what kind of person you are. And yes, IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce spreadsheet files that do not conform to ODF - whether you acknowledge that defines your level of technical competence (all the code and data is there for you to use). However, I agree this information should NOT be included in this article as it comes from my personal blog, and we have waaay too much personal blog content in these articles as is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As Alex has suggested that this information should be removed and as it is his blog that provided the citation for the article I have added the edit protected template to the talk page ThePilgrim (talk)

Sorry I can't find this sentence. Please can be you more specific about what you want done, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it on the page either, as the protection has been removed I withdraw the request ThePilgrim (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Groklawed and slashdotted!

Whee! The FUD fun and games of Rfvuhbtg (talk · contribs), HAI (talk · contribs), ThePilgrim (talk · contribs) et al have been noticed by Groklaw, which in turn has been thematized by Slashdot. What fun! -- Fullstop (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For me you have it the wrong way around. I read the article on Groklaw before coming here. This is me on Groklaw ThePilgrim (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation request on reference to 'ZIP standard' critisism

A citation was requested. A source on this critisism can be found here Latest OOX-ODF FUD-Spat: States Prepare to Ban Zip and PDF Files hAl (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this citation is valid. The comments to the Blog entry have several criticisms of the information in the Blog entry ThePilgrim (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish template

Yeah, I admit, I got here via Slashdot, but I'm a WP editor first, and a Slashdotter 2nd.

Anyway, being new to this discussion, I'm finding it difficult to uncover the argument as to why Office Open XML needs to be in the distinguish disambiguation tag. The guideline for disambiguation may be found at WP:DAB. The article seems to give no explanation as to why there would be any confusion between the two names. The current edit mentions that it's "another XML format" (paraphrase), which is not a case for disambiguation, it's a case for seealso; and even then, only if it hasn't yet been worked into the article. An anonymous user removed it earlier today and the edit was reverted. I'm removing it again, looking forward to hearing counter-arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, nevermind, took to long to post, and now it's full-protected. Oh well, the argument stands for discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An anon just removed it; it's been there for quite a while now, presumably because there may be confusion amongst non-technical readers of the difference between this document format and the one promulgated by Microsoft. The Office Open XML has a similar link to this page; we should either have both or neither so that no favouritism is being shown towards one format or the other. I think the long disambiguations at the beginnings of articles are ridiculous, anyways -- it's a sign that we need a proper disambiguation page. Warren -talk- 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The OOXML article does not disambiguate here at this time (I'm assuming someone fixed it, too lazy to parse the history), and I agree, it has no reason to do so. -Verdatum (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, actually :-) ... nobody seems to be contesting it so far. Warren -talk- 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OpenDocument, or OpenDocument Format?

I've been trying to figure out if the full and proper name of the format is "OpenDocument" or "OpenDocument Format". The acronym "ODF" leads me to believe the latter, but the specification documents and web sites are by no means consistent. You'll see "OpenDocument Format" and "OpenDocument format" used almost interchangably.

The reason I'm wondering this is because there may be a justification for renaming the article to "OpenDocument Format" if it's determined that this is the correct name of the standard. This article is the first Google result on the term "OpenDocument" so it's important that we get it right.

Any thoughts? Warren -talk- 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about this myself. However, since you point out that official documents are using the two casings interchangably, it is less important. I don't think we should get into renaming until we can find some authoritative statement explicitly clarifying the name. Such as an official FAQ document that answers the question, "Is it OpenDocument Format, OpenDocument format, or OpenDocument that just happens to be a format?" -Verdatum (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be able to get an official statement or FAQ update done, which in turn we can use on Wikipedia to get things sorted out. I've seen this happen before with WebKit (look at reference #1)... Warren -talk- 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of ZIP

I removed the criticism that ODF does not refer to ZIP as a standard and the change was reverted by User:Warren. I think the text in question is an invalid ODF criticism as ZIP is not any kind of formal standard, so hardy a fault of ODF. What is more the source is a personal blog (although it's a very fine personal blog). Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Although I don't know much about the standard, but from the text:

* The OpenDocument Format 1.0-1.1 specifications refer to 'ZIP' files but do not reference a standard which describes the zip file format.

The specifications just "refer to" ZIP which is not supposed to be included in the spec. It is hardly to say it's a related criticism to ODF IMO. Similarly, it is hardly to say a book is bad just because it doesn't give a clear picture of what it refers to. It's acceptable to leave the ZIP unspecified/undefined IMO. - Justin545 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable source making the criticism -- that's the criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not our opinions on the issue. Warren -talk- 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

>> "that's the criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not our opinions on the issue"

Discussions on talk page don't need to be reliably sourced. It's the playground to make concensus. An entirely, reliably sourced material cannot be a discussion. - Justin545 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren, are personal blogs considered reliable sources? If you read Dennis's article you will also see that he is being humorous and subtle in criticising ZIP (he calls the criticism of ZIP a "FUD-Spat"). This so-called criticism of ODF is (a) unfounded, (b) sourced from a personal log and (c) based on a misreading of that blog. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Critisims is always POV. Important is that the POV sourced information is verifiable. That ZIP is no standard for instance is verifiable and that is the basis for the critisism. In a strange way the standardization of Office open XML which contains all the information in the ZIP appnotestxt makes it possible for the future ODF 1.2 to reference an official ISO standard for the same information and that is an official standard. hAl (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

For a discussion of some of the issues see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009061001520015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murray Langton (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COINB for recent discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section is not quite as bad as I might have feared given the recent hype. However, it is lacking in sources. In an article that is the source of controversy, such as this one, facts must be backed by reliable sources. In criticism sections, claims must be actual sourced criticisms. It is not sufficient that they be true facts (even verified true facts) that particular editors just don't like. That would be Original Research. Further, it helps that they be written in a manner that states the criticism first, and then gives any background needed to understand the argument. I'll do what i can to fix the section, as time allows. -Verdatum (talk)

If you want sourcing than asking for sourcing would seem better than immediatly removing the information alltogether. hAl (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I waited 4 hours before removing the information (yes, I realize that's like nothing in Wikipedia time). For policy backed edits, I prefer to be WP:BOLD. I did cursory searches for references (You'll note I added some for other sections), and when searches turned up nothing, I still left in any claims for which I felt it reasonable to believe that reliable sources exist. But in general, the claims in question made heavy use of weasel words and came off as editors' personal complaints, or the opinion of random people on forums or non-reputable blogs. Even if this is inaccurate, the perception still exists, and that weakens the article. For posterity, the edits in question are here. If anyone can find Reliable Sources, they are welcome to appropriately edit the article (in most of cases, a combination of sourcing and rewording is appropriate). -Verdatum (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)