Talk:OpenDocument

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)

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)

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)

Update: Done. --Laushh (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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 a good faith revert? Danny (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the good faith edit by the editor that added database infobox. Danny (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

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. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2011 (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? --Arebenti (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (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. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Simplification

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)

OpenOffice.org Calc to MediaWiki

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. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Restrictions

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

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)