Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

OpenDocument Now Published ISO Standard

Posted by Hemos on Mon Dec 04, 2006 08:34 AM
from the a-long-long-road dept.
bobibobi writes "After months of revisions, OpenDocument receives status of a full published standard. The various stages of a standard's "stage code" are also online." The OpenDocument standard has been developed by a variety of organizations and is publicly accessible. This means it can be implemented into any system, be it free software/open source or a closed proprietary product, without royalties.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday December 04 2006, @08:41AM (#17098270)
    Salmon spend their whole life swimming in the ocean eating so that they grow strong and healthy so that when they return to their spawning pools they have enough energy to spread their milt before sinking to the creekbed, exhausted and dead. They get so beaten up by the force of the water which flows backwards towards the ocean that it seems almost pointless for them to make the trek all the way back to the waters of their birth. But they do this, despite having 90% of the OS market running Microsoft applications and with most application users using Microsoft Word to draft their documents. The battle to swim upstream to mate and die is one that must be fought. The survival of the wild salmon stock depends on these brave fish to face the torrents and rapids and emerge beaten and worn in the quiet streams of the Pacific Northwest.
    • by EvilRyry (1025309) on Monday December 04 2006, @08:51AM (#17098356) Journal
      You have a very accurate username!
    • I still would like to know if I can use odf in Word. Is there a plug-in for it?
      • Yes (Score:5, Informative)

        by Shawn is an Asshole (845769) on Monday December 04 2006, @09:11AM (#17098494)
        There is an open source (BSD) plugin [sourceforge.net] available. Microsoft is funding it. So are a few other companies. Quoting their blog [sourceforge.net]:


        Launching of 0.3-M1 release
        By Jean Goffinet, Thursday 30 November 2006 at 12:04 :: posted to General

        Last week we released version 0.3-M1 of the converter. What do those numbers mean?

        • 0.3 means that we are now working mainly on the reverse conversion (from DOCX to ODT); the direct conversion will still continue to be improved, but it will be far less visible than during the previous months (we fixed a lot of bugs since the last release, though - the number of open bugs on SourceForge dropped from more than 100 to less than 50 at the time of the release)
        • M1 stands for "Milestone 1" and corresponds to a set of features that were implemented according to the roadmap of the project.


        For simple documents, the reverse conversion works quite fine, allowing users to manipulate OpenDocument text files directly in Word. Our main concern is now to make the process of opening an ODT file and saving it back to ODT as accurate as possible. That means that if we have to implement workarounds to convert features that are not directly available in one format or the other, those workarounds will have to be preserved during the reverse conversion. To ensure that this process works fine, we iterate it several times on one file, and see the final result as something we could call the "fix point" of the converter (refering to a famous mathematical theorem - but I'm not sure of the english name).

        Once we have an acceptable result for direct / reverse conversions, we will enhance our transformations so that they can also work correctly on legacy doc files produced by previous versions of Word (there are tons of features that are marked as deprecated in the OpenXML specification).


    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The survival of the wild salmon stock depends on these brave fish to face the torrents and rapids and emerge beaten and worn in the quiet streams of the Pacific Northwest.

      If slashdot had a Bayesian spam filter, its eyes would be bleeding after reading your post.

      Standards are good. Just look at MPEG and DVB - now broadcast standards. Complying with a standard delivers interoperability, but that is only useful if you're not the monopoly market leader. It's probably in Microsoft's interest to NOT adopt

      • You DO realize that post was made by BadAnalogyGuy, right? If you argue, he'll just say it was a Bad Analogy and be done with it. ;)
      • It's probably in Microsoft's interest to NOT adopt OD import/export, otherwise they'd be shooting themselves in the foot - at least at the moment.

        they are [sourceforge.net]

        Note under 'Contributers:' "Microsoft (Funding, Architectural & Technical Guidance and Project co-coordination)"
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I continue to wonder why people here continue to view "The Open Source Community" and Microsoft as two opponents in some kind of imaginary war. There is no cabal; there is no war. MS does not care about ODF since it serves a different market and wishes only that ODF succeeds where it already is.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          MS does not care about ODF since it serves a different market and wishes only that ODF succeeds where it already is.

          Right. And that's why Microsoft isn't spending money lobbying Massachusetts [slashdot.org] to "take away much of the ITD's power to make technology policy". It's not trying to "protect its wildly profitable Office software franchise against potential erosion by competing products that support ODF". Microsoft doesn't care about ODF, yeah right.

  • Nice. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bright Apollo (988736) on Monday December 04 2006, @08:42AM (#17098278) Journal
    I've worked with some OASIS spec'd XML before, and while it's not usually the most elegant solution, having *any* XML-based document markup become standard is good news. I would love to start doing text-extraction directly from Excel, Word and so forth without having to cut out text, drop it into another MS product, flatten it by hand, etc.

    Quick example:
          We do user requirements using Word. I wanted to extract them into a database so I can relate them
          to functional specs, use cases, code, etc (yes, we're just figuring this out now).
          To extract the requirements, I had to cut out each section of tables (Lord help you if they're nested,
          or misaligned, or misnumbered) and plop it into Excel, scrub it repeatedly (scrub those nubs!), and
          only then insert it into a database.

    With XML-based documents, I just pull out all of the matching tags, form an INSERT around it, and off it goes into the db.

    -BA

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      You are missing an important point. OpenDocument is not Microsoft Office "Open" XML. OpenDocument is the document format used by office suits like OpenOffice.org and KOffice, and is not supported by Microsoft. Actually, I think Microsoft would have preferred OpenDocument to never happen, so that they can keep all their users well locked in their proprietary binary formats. Now that it happened, Microsoft responded by having their own proprietary XML format for the (very recently released) Office 2007. So, a
      • So even though for the usage scenarios you are describing, it makes little difference whether it's OpenDocument or the Microsoft "Open" XML, this does not make them the same. They are not.

        Actually the scenario described, parsing a document to extract data and insert into a database, is much more straight forward in OpenDocument Format (ODF) than in MS Office Open XML (MOOX). Take a look at the specs, even a quick look. ODF is much more oriented to structure, with straight forward labels and makes bette

  • What can be more free than this and stay so: "open source or a closed proprietary"!

    O. Wyss
  • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday December 04 2006, @08:58AM (#17098406) Homepage
    Real layout/presentation junkies use TeX. The original "Open Document Format."

    Tom
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      While you wrote your preamble.tex I typed my letter, printed a label for the envelope, put a stamp on it and put it in the post box. Then I got back and made a cup of tea, played minesweeper, got a new high score. By which time you'd compiled the latex document.

      But seriously, I use OpenOffice most of the time, but last year I wrote my 300 page thesis in LaTeX. I would always advocate LaTeX for large/complex documents. Each has their place. Hopefully Open Document, and it's common implementation in applicati
      • Re:Bah, use TeX :-) (Score:4, Informative)

        by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday December 04 2006, @09:17AM (#17098540) Homepage
        You can like totally like use templates and such. Like for sure. TeX also supports includes...

        \input{preamble.tex}
        Dear Mary,

        ~

        Sup?

        ~

        Sincerely,
        Tom St Denis

        \input{postamble.tex}

        Wow ... hard ...

        Tom
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I'm currently writing a book in LaTeX. I did the entire outline in OmniOutliner, and when I was happy with it, I ran a script that created a directory structure, one per chapter, with all my sections, subsections, and notes in a tex file in each directory. It has some code listings, and these are pulled in directly from the source files and syntax highlighted, so they never get out of sync with the original (and, thus, are all tested). Oh, and on my new machine it takes 3 seconds to do a full build (incl
  • With MS Office representing about a third of Microsoft's income, you can bet they aren't happy about this.
  • Now we need for national standards authorities (such as BSI, VDE &c.) to ratify this standard. Then, software which conforms correctly to the OpenDocument standard will be permitted to display the relevant national authority's mark (e.g. Kitemark). This alone will be a tremendous boost for the OpenDocument standard.

    What's bad IMHO is that ISO are charging money just for access to the standard -- it's not available online for you to print on your own equipment at your own expense. But, of course,
  • by Gunfighter (1944) on Monday December 04 2006, @09:32AM (#17098664) Homepage
    Now that it's an ISO standard, perhaps the ISO would be so kind as to make its use part of one of those big compliance standards. This way, companies that want to be ISO 31337 (or whatever number they're up to now) compliant will have to use ODF as their primary means of storing and transmitting documents. After all, what's the use of a new standard if nobody feels compelled to use it? In addition to encouraging the use of open formats, it will give companies a reason to explore their options as far as office automation software.

    Let's see some mass migrations from MS Office to OpenOffice.org and other such Open Source office suites. A few large corporations making the switch will produce case studies and some of those nifty ROI projections the suits always drool over. A snowball effect would be nice. One company makes the move and triggers a chain reaction in all of their vendors, suppliers, distributors, subsidiaries, etc. etc.
    • The decision earlier by Massachusetts ( See articles here [consortiuminfo.org] )to move all their documents to ODF may provide some of this data.
      A wider adoption by government bodies would probably provide the snowball effect you're looking for better than business, as it would be part of government regulations, etc.
    • That sounds like Microsoft practices being filtered through ISO to me. Are you sure you want that? It would, in my opinion, degrade ISO if it was used for dirty tricks and to force people to choose one platform over another. OSS is about choice, not force.
      • ISO is already used for dirty tricks like keeping consultants employed.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        OpenDocument is not a platform, it's a method of storing data.
        Having open and documented standards for storing data is ESSENTIAL, and absoloutely should be mandated if necessary. Where would we be if, instead of SATA/IDE/SCSI and CDs, every PC manufacturer used a proprietary type of hard drive and a proprietary form of removable media?

        Just because the format is dictated, doesnt place any restriction on what you can use to manipulate the data, so long as it conforms to the standard. I can put my SATA drive i
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      A few large corporations making the switch [to OpenOffice.org] will produce case studies and some of those nifty ROI projections the suits always drool over.

      Indeed, but hastily-planned attempts to do so that end in failure will produce enough negative publicity to stall the entire momentum. You are assuming that all such attempts will succeed, and succeed well. But this is not at all obvious, even though they SHOULD succeed. But, a switch to OO.org is still a switch, i.e. a change in how things are alrea
  • by YGingras (605709) <ygingras@ygingras.net> on Monday December 04 2006, @09:47AM (#17098844) Homepage
    Now we know that the draft is obsolete and we have to page a huge bundle to d/l the PDF. What do we gain from that? Is this really operational costs? Why can IETF and W3C publish electronic versions free of charges and ISO can't? I'd rather have an OASIS semi-standard than an ISO standard that most can't afford to see.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The ISO certification is just that, ISO has certified the existing standard, so you can download the spec from Oasis or wherever else...
  • Why the ISO hatred? (Score:3, Informative)

    by PWNT (985141) on Monday December 04 2006, @11:42AM (#17100340)
    Why do all of you seem to have a distinct ISO hatred?

    From engineering I have learned that ISO standards are completely voluntary. They provide a means for Company A to say, "I need 1,000,000 bolts adhering to ISO XXXXXX". They can then find companies which adhere to these standards and purchase based on best price. If a company wants to be ISO certified for a process they must pay for an inspector to come and check out the process (quality, ensuring, stuff is done properly, etc). I have heard other people bitch about how much it costs to do this, however, it is not your company being forced into the standardization, rather YOUR CUSTOMER is demanding a specified level of quality. These people who are complaining are really voicing a view that they would prefer to deliver a LOWER QUALITY good to a customer for the price of the higher quality good and leave the customer none the wiser. This is a bad business decision.

    The example I give above is for screw production, however treat software as a commodity. Then software which read and write files which adhere to the standard are best. Software packages can be built to support these standards and greater emergent networks can be formed (I give the internet and it's effect on business. I hope we can all agree on /. that the internet has been a powerful force in business) .

    To further my example, look into the history of screws or fasteners, there were many competing designs, and the 2-3 best remain today enshrined in some ISO standard along with all their derivative designs.

    With the introduction of this ISO standard, business can more easily data mine, update, import/export, modify, and track changes. If any of you who read /. are CIO's or CTO's (information and technical officers) or people who have the ability to advocate ISO standardization for file types, do it. It can only benefit the mobility of your company. One can choose to make switches in direction rather quickly when all the data you store is in a known format. You could hire some coders to do internal tasks for you. There are NO disadvantages to ISO standardization for the customer. One can choose to purchase drop-in-solutions.

    Simple questions like "We have ODT files and require support according to ISO XXXXX, can you provide this with your product." replace long drawn out negotiations about who owns what file format or whatever.

    In conclusion ISO is important for customers.

    If I am misinformed on any of these topics, please respond.
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by heroofhyr (777687) on Monday December 04 2006, @08:47AM (#17098330)
      From the ISO website's FAQ:

      1.4 What does "international standardization" mean? When the large majority of products or services in a particular business or industry sector conform to International Standards, a state of industry-wide standardization can be said to exist. This is achieved through consensus agreements between national delegations representing all the economic stakeholders concerned - suppliers, users and, often, governments. They agree on specifications and criteria to be applied consistently in the classification of materials, the manufacture of products and the provision of services. In this way, International Standards provide a reference framework, or a common technological language, between suppliers and their customers - which facilitates trade and the transfer of technology.

      1.5 What benefits does international standardization bring to businesses? For businesses, the widespread adoption of International Standards means that suppliers can base the development of their products and services on reference documents which have broad market relevance. This, in turn, means that they are increasingly free to compete on many more markets around the world.

      1.6 What benefits does international standardization bring to customers? For customers, the worldwide compatibility of technology which is achieved when products and services are based on International Standards brings them an increasingly wide choice of offers, and they also benefit from the effects of competition among suppliers.

      http://www.iso.org/iso/en/faqs/faq-general.html [iso.org]
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2006, @08:48AM (#17098346)
      MartinJW: Surely it has no impact on how and where the OD format can be used.

      Summary: This means it can be implemented into any system, be it free software/open source or a closed proprietary product, without royalties.

      Yeah, I really wish they would have spelled it out for us...
      • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by init100 (915886) on Monday December 04 2006, @08:56AM (#17098392)

        Who cares if the office-file-formats, highly efficient and thoroughly documented on MSDN...

        You mean that the APIs for working with (MS) office files are well documented, not the formats themselves.

        • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)

          by flakier (177415) on Monday December 04 2006, @10:06AM (#17099090) Homepage
          Actually you two are both wrong. The current (2007) version of the office file formats are fully documented on the ECMA site, not MSDN (though MSDN does also have some docs on the file formats as well). In fact, it is actually the file formats and not just API documentation that you will find at ECMA.

          Office 2007 File Format Specs:
          http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45-M.h tm [ecma-international.org]

          Listing of MSDN Articles on working with the Office 2K7 Formats:
          http://openxmldeveloper.org/archive/2006/08/31/599 .aspx [openxmldeveloper.org]
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            However this is a format that's not yet deployed, anywhere...
            It can also have proprietary extensions, and you can be sure it will in short order... And finally, is covered by patents.
          • There are so many to choose from: If ISO has been taken, then you can always go to ecma, IEEE or whichever org is willing to take your money to make it a 'standard'. Other people suggest that if one monopolist is the only one to implement it, it is not a real standard (me for instance) .
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        bloated shitpiece sold as OD.

        Value judgements aside, what do you mean by sold?

    • The simple answer is that OpenDocument is not a Microsoft core asset. It's not even from Microsoft. It was originally created by OpenOffice [wikipedia.org], a competitor to MS Office.
    • OpenDocument is the format that OpenOffice.org and StarOffice use for their documents, the one that's completely open, the one that Massachusetts wanted to standardize their document processes on but got shut down once Microsoft tossed their gubernatorial candidate/winner into the mix and scapped that show.

      OpenXML, on the other hand, is Microsoft's proprietary format that it wants to be registered as an open standard, however it won't be truly as it has patent encumbrances. Besides, Microsoft likely sees O
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        OpenDocument is the format that OpenOffice.org and StarOffice use for their documents

        Don't forget KOffice, Abiword, Google Docs, and about a dozen others that are in various stages of implementing OpenDocument support. Corel says they're adding OpenDocument support to Corel Office (WordPerfect), though AFAIK they haven't said when it will be available. I don't think IBM/Lotus is adding OpenDocument support to SmartSuite (Ami Pro, Lotus 123, etc.), but IBM is moving to the IBM Workplace suite, which is built on OpenOffice.org and, obviously, uses OpenDocument natively.

        I predict that by

    • What part of "Open Document" don't you understand? ;-)

      Open Document comes from Open Office, not Microfost Office. RTFA and read this page [wikipedia.org] as well.
    • They want to make a show of being just as open as OpenDocument, but not give up complete control over implementation rights (read: patents) for their new MS Office XML formats. In other words, itsatrap. If the world moved to OpenDocument, no one could limit the commercial and noncommercial implementations of the format. Not so with Microsoft's standards, into which their claws are still at least loosely sunk.
    • Microsoft will probably be bragging about how Office OpenXML has been submitted as a EMCA standard.
    • Decades of formats (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Monday December 04 2006, @10:57AM (#17099776)
      Those big corporations with a billion dollar budget were using Word since decades. I don't see how that's going to change either.

      No, they haven't! Most businesses have been using MS Word for one decade -- before that, they used WordPerfect. They actually switched due to a large effort on Microsoft's part to make Word read WordPerfect's format really well, while also being better software than WordPerfect. Software using OpenDocument could do the same thing, especially since it's actually a standard.

      Companies have switched office software before; they can do so again.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        No, they haven't! Most businesses have been using MS Word for one decade -- before that, they used WordPerfect. They actually switched due to a large effort on Microsoft's part to make Word read WordPerfect's format really well, while also being better software than WordPerfect. Software using OpenDocument could do the same thing, especially since it's actually a standard.

        Actually, it's arguably less than that. The changeover started to happen around the time Win95 was introduced and accelerated as it beca
    • Except in this case Microsoft have a vested interest in making it as difficult as possible for other people to implement support for their format.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Hmm, WiFi is simply a logo that says that the devices implements the Wlan-standard corectly. The standard itself was written in committees. Wrong example. HTML OpenGL X window system POSIX Bluetooth ZigBee USB etc...
    • I'd argue that there's an organization that has demonstrated how to do 'standards by committee' correctly for decades. You know, the one that defined how computers are supposed to communicate with each other so well that all other competing options (many of them from profit driven companies) have all pretty much dried up and blown away? The organization whose predecessors had as the original design goal of developing a communications network so robust it could survive a nuclear war?

      For the young and/or cl
    • Re:The problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Monday December 04 2006, @09:09AM (#17098482)
      The problem with those "standards" is that today this may be enough for all, but maybe tomorrow there will arise tasks for which the standards will not be good enough, or you will need to use many hacks to try to fit to the standards.

      Yes like TCP/IP, ANSI/Unicode, HTML, CSS. You know those obsolete standards that nobody uses anymore. :P

      • On the other hand I still have nightmares of the incredible amount of hacks I've seen trying to fit absolutely anything, from CD ripping to project management in Excel. Odd that...
        (my eyes ! The goggles...)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The problem with those "standards" is that today this may be enough for all, but maybe tomorrow there will arise tasks for which the standards will not be good enough

      Two points:

      First, office document technology isn't likely to change all that much. Word processors and spreadsheets do pretty much everything they need to, and it's quite likely that improvements will be small incremental changes in the way users work with the tools (i.e. UI changes) rather than the sort of significant changes that require new data formats. Look, for example, at the fact that the Microsoft Office formats from Office 95 -- an 11 year-old suite -- remain unchanged. Microsoft is pushing