OpenDocument Foundation Closes 177
Munchkinguy writes "First, they dropped support for their namesake OpenDocument Format and declared a switch to the W3C's 'Compound Document Format.' Then, W3C's Chris Lilley clarified that CDF 'was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use as, an office format.' Now, the Foundation has mysteriously closed up shop, leaving the following message: 'The OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. is closed. We sincerely wish our friends and associates in the OpenDocument Community all the best and much success going forward. Good-bye and good luck.'"
Microsoft shut them down (Score:5, Insightful)
Please read previous articles. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In related news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In related news (Score:3, Insightful)
"Plutocracy".
TWW
Still Making News...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fishy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now (Score:3, Insightful)
Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?
Oh, I see where your ideas could have come from. Going to share?
Re:Fishy (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt this is true in any case, let alone the borderline edge cases Slashdot keeps making unfounded accusations for.
Re:Honestly, (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of word processor documents, the program renders something (unfortunately also called a document) on some kind of device, typically a printer (with various paper formats) and the screen. The difference between HTML with CSS and javascript, and something like MS Word doc format are: built in interfaces to other systems (e.g. compound documents in the case of word), services the underlying rendering platform is expected to provide, plus miscellaneous implementation choices (e.g. VBA vs. javascript). The differences in services provided (e.g. compound document linking and updating in the case of Word) reflect in part the practical differences in the target application domains. And these practicalities do matter, although as HTML matures it is becoming a more practical alternative (in my opinion) for many kinds of documents.
In the case of spreadsheets, they are also a "document" when we are talking about the standard in question, although they are also arguably special purpose programs. The main thing they have in common with "documents" of the prior type is that they are also expected to have graphical renderings.
So really, what we are talking about here are practical ways of achieving various things users need in the course of their work. There are always more than one way to get things done, and accordingly, users could make do with HTML or PDF for many tasks, particularly if they are provided with an editor. With CSS and javascript, there's an even stronger case to be made that there isn't any critical need for a "presentation" document format.
While such solutions would clearly be adequate, they are not necessarily optimal for everyone. For example, HTML does not provide change tracking and commenting capabilities, although this can be a blessing when interchanging documents.
Re:There was a time when a standard was made by... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so that makes Windows, .DOC(X?), and MSIE the standards. We can all pack up and go home now.
The reason for standards committees is that de facto standards often suck for everyone except the people who invented them.
Re:Shut them down? -No, Send a large check? -Maybe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the evidence made public during the anti-trust trial and conviction should be enough for anyone to have a healthy distrust of everything Redmond does, especially anything regarding openness or interoperability or anything else that threatens Microsoft's OS and office suite lock-in and thus their entire business model.