Jump to content

Talk:OpenDocument

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feedmecereal (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 25 August 2010 (→ODF database support: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What specifically isn't neutral

Pardon my ignorance, but I've read through this discussion page and I can't quite seem to find what the source of the alleged neutrality dispute actually is. What specific part of the article, as written, is biased? "Class? Anyone? Anyone?..." Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Office

Does MS Office 2007/2010 really support ODF? Or is it ODF that has been MS-ified. Please clarify!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.0.56 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things to Clean Up

  • Reference 8 "ISO and IEC approve OpenDocument OASIS standard for data interoperability of office applications" now points to a non-existing page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckhung (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "OpenDocument 1.0 (second edition)" now points to a non-existing page.
  • Under Critisism all the bullets but one are formulated as being verified facts. But "Microsoft believes that it is not possible to implement..." is a pessimistic, subjective statement. If it was a fact, "It is not possible to implement [ever]...", it would belong here. If we were listing bugs or feature requests this list would be VERY long. Why not remove the statement, or at least move it to a new "Microsoft's opinions" section? Gigahz (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive messages & anonymous edits

An anonymous user (at IP 82.131.94.40) has now twice removed a referenced statement from the OpenDocument Foundation without justification (and I have now reverted this twice). The same user has left a message on my talk page: "Alexbrn is a Microsoft payed [sic] piece of shit. Go lick your balls, asshole." Wikipedia at its finest? (and what do other editors think?) Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) I think that any rudeness towards other editors is against the principles of Wikipedia; perhaps you could report this person on the adminstrators notice board.
b) But examination of the history and limited size of the Open Document Foundation suggests that this is hardly a reliable source to quote from, so I have removed this statement. Murray Langton (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure reliability comes into it - the central principle of Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" WP:VER and this organization existed, has its own Wikipedia entry, played a documented role in the development of the format under discussion, and is cited elsewhere in this entry. Removing this one mention of them has the unfortunate effect of giving this article a certain point of view Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is a consideration, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also, have you formally reported the abuse (if not I think you should do so)? Murray Langton (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On looking at WP:VER I see that there is a strong emphsis on reliable sources as well. Murray Langton (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't reported it. How do I? I suppose my question about this deletion is why is this statement from the OpenDocument Foundation removed, while another one is maintained (currently reference #27)? And there are many references in this article which fall below any quality/track-record/reliability bars this reference apparently fails. I can't see how this is consistent (and has the side-effect of airbrushing 'criticism' out of the article) Or is it time for a mass purge on this article? Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One place to report uncivil language is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I observe that you have been editing Wikipedia for over 3 years now; perhaps you should consider looking around the site a bit more instead of focusing on only a few articles. Murray Langton (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at ref #27 (a GrokLaw page). In view of the numerous comments posted it would seem that this has at least had some public scrutiny by a range of people - whether or not they actually released the software in question is another matter; perhaps you know one way or the other? Murray Langton (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to new ODF Icons?

Hi, I'd like to propose changing the file type icons.

Currently the article uses rather generic text document, spreadsheet and presentation icons from the Tango icon library.

I propose to use the ODF icons from the ODF toolkit.

The ODF icons from the toolkit are neutral towards vendor, platform and application. And they express the actual format ODF.

Any objections? How shall I proceed?

Thanks! Lutz. --Laushh (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more piece of information. The ODF icons are available under the Apache License Version 2.0. Is this "free enough" for Wikipedia? --Laushh (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Done. --Laushh (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ODF database support

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 an AGF revert? Danny (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:OpenDocument&oldid=381004989"