Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software

OpenDocument Now Published ISO Standard 134

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenDocument Now Published ISO Standard

Comments Filter:
  • I'm just a little curious about what this means - is it just a red stamp? Surely it has no impact on how and where the OD format can be used. Confused of Holmfirth
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by heroofhyr ( 777687 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:47AM (#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 @09:48AM (#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...
      • The GP was not ignoring the summary, he was opposing it. Restating the summary doesn't address his objection.
  • We'll soon see the flurry of fud from them - ISO standards mean nothing much, we're all about lowering tco etc ... But seriously, what difference does it make to anyone? I've been using odt long before and that's not going to change. Those big corporations with a billion dollar budget were using Word since decades. I don't see how that's going to change either.
    • Microsoft will probably be bragging about how Office OpenXML has been submitted as a EMCA standard.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are countries in this world where the government requires that all communication is in an open standard... You may be HP or Microsoft or Dell, if want to do sell them anything, you must send your docs in the requested format... if you don't they'll send it to /dev/nul...
    • by flakier ( 177415 )
      I believe MS will be trying to get the Open XML format standardized by ISO as well so it wouldn't be in their best interest to do what you propose. Thanks for playing.
    • Decades of formats (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:57AM (#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)

        by value_added ( 719364 )
        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
      • by Xipher ( 868293 )
        Actually if Microsoft picks up this standard, they don't have to change, it's just being made easier if they so choose.
  • by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:41AM (#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 @09:51AM (#17098356) Journal
      You have a very accurate username!
    • by tsa ( 15680 )
      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 @10:11AM (#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).


        • by tsa ( 15680 )
          Thanks, I'll try it out!
        • 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

          Everything is said here: "works quite fine" ... "as accurate as possible". We need much more than that.

          If this plugin provides a good enough working editor for "simple" odt files, it's gonna be next to useless. I doubt it can do better because sticking with stan
        • by Szynaka ( 65273 )
          There's something awesome about the roadmap for the ODF Add-in for Microsoft Word being distributed as a Microsoft Word Document. http://downloads.sourceforge.net/odf-converter/Roa dmap.doc [sourceforge.net]
        • The OpenXML format includes technologies developed and patented by Microsoft. Even if this code were in the Public Domain, MS could still sue you for using it. That's the point of this whole exercise: To blur the meaning of "free" and "open". To get you to go for a ride on their submarine. Apparently the code in this sourceforge project is C#, so more patents are involved.

          Let's look at how they dealt with Sendo, a company that partnered with them to help them get into the clubby smartphone biz, ( http [theregister.co.uk]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tttonyyy ( 726776 )

      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

      • by Aladrin ( 926209 )
        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)"
        • Microsoft adoption = embrace and ext{end,inguish} and it's usually not a good thing for the technology being assimil... ehm adopted. That's what i gather from what happened to WWW standards with explorer and java with MS JVM. That's why i have shivers for Mono and Novell. Odf, well i guess i can live with iso standard and hope it suffices.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by flakier ( 177415 )
        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)

          by imroy ( 755 )

          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.

    • the battle to swim upstream to mate

      So that's why you use the OpenDocument format!

      If only it was that easy :(

  • Nice. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bright Apollo ( 988736 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:42AM (#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)

      by hritcu ( 871613 )
      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
      • True, they are not the same and I apologize for implying that they are. I think I was jumping the gun a little by assuming support for this as a writeable option (Save As) would make its way into the Office suite.

        -BA

      • 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

        • ODF, then, is how I remember working with another OASIS spec for Datastream 7i. The parsing will be simple, at least for a computer program (tedious walkdown by hand).

          -BA

        • by hritcu ( 871613 )

          There is a good Comparison of ODF v MOOX which goes into the details.

          The Groklaw article [groklaw.net] is written by Alex Hudson, J. David Eisenberg, Bruce D'Arcus and Daniel Carrera of the OpenDocument Fellowship, and it is naturally biased. If you want to see arguments coming from both sides I would recommend the Wikipedia article on the issue [wikipedia.org].

    • ``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.''

      Would it help if you used catdoc, antiword, wv, or saved the documents as RTF or HTML? Just spouting some suggestions, so that you won't have missed them.
  • What can be more free than this and stay so: "open source or a closed proprietary"!

    O. Wyss
  • 340 Swiss Francs! Boo hoo :( I thought it was free!

    </irony>

  • Finally, the online community has convinced the gods of the space age to let go of their greed and lust for cash - i guess we owe it all to the Linux guys, but even more to Google - they were the first to understand how to profit in a friendly way.
  • by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @09:58AM (#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 ) <tomstdenis@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @10:17AM (#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
      • MountainMan101 wrote:

        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

        • by MooUK ( 905450 )
          Abiword already uses .odt - I *think* it's standard, but it may just be available - and is small, and very portable. It even has a "Portable Abiword" windows binary available.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
        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
  • MS Office (Score:2, Redundant)

    by javilon ( 99157 )
    With MS Office representing about a third of Microsoft's income, you can bet they aren't happy about this.
    • In related news, Herman-Miller and Steelcase stock rose 3% upon announcement of the acceptance of this standard. No word yet as to how many chairs Ballmer has destroyed.
  • Have you ever noticed how the best "standards" are those that were originally developed by a single company (usually with a profit motive) (think WiFi, think HPIB - er IEEE488, think PC BIOS, the list is long) that were subsequently adopted by the industry as a defacto standard? Conversely, how many times have we seen "standards" created by a committee that are bloated, too broad, and oftentimes followed by a significantly de-scoped version of same in a desperate effort to salvage something? When a bunch of
    • 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)

      by Alphager ( 957739 )
      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...
    • Even if you are correct about standards, which I do not believe, you forget one thing: ODF wasn't designed by a committee. It was based on the formats used by OpenOffice.
    • ...how many times have we seen "standards" created by a committee that are bloated, too broad..

      • Cough
      XML DOM
      • Cough
    • by sgtrock ( 191182 )
      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
    • Did you really just use the PC BIOS as an example of a well designed standard? Compare it to OpenFirmware, and then tell me one thing it does correctly.
  • 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 @10:32AM (#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.
    • by IflyRC ( 956454 )
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Neil Watson ( 60859 )
        ISO is already used for dirty tricks like keeping consultants employed.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        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
        • 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?

          You mean, where would we be if SoundBlaster cards had a proprietary CD-ROM interface that everyone used at one time, Iomega's proprietary zip drives became wildly popular, and many more formats like Bernoulli, Sparq, LS-120, Orb, and others were all competing to replace it? A world were different digital cameras have entirely different and proprietary

          • by Bert64 ( 520050 )
            The proprietary CDROM interface on soundblaster cards died out, because it was proprietary and IDE was preferred.
            The proprietary zip format has died too, they were never as popular as you describe and quite quickly faded away again... Same for LS-120 and the others.
            As for the solid state media cards, true there are too many formats, but they're not proprietary, there are many implementations of each format from multiple vendors, and the vast majority of cameras actually support the usb-storage standard anyw
            • The proprietary CDROM interface on soundblaster cards died out, because it was proprietary and IDE was preferred.

              Not really, but what was your point?

              The proprietary zip format has died too,

              Obviously.

              they were never as popular as you describe and quite quickly faded away again...

              You're just simply wrong. They were selling just under 10 million drives per year, and the decline lasted several years, not because of propritary tech, but because of price, reliability, and capacity.

              As for the solid state media ca

      • You definitely have a point, but I don't think it would be forceful at all. It's more like forcing the ability to choose than forcing a particular choice. Plus, compliance in and of itself is still a choice. Companies choose whether or not they want to try to achieve a certain ISO compliance-standardization-level-thingy. My company is not, and probably never will be, ISO-anything compliant. Not because I can't follow their rules, but because I am (for now) a one-man show and don't really need to be ISO-anyt
    • 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
    • ``After all, what's the use of a new standard if nobody feels compelled to use it?''

      The fact that there _is_ a standard. Something you can point to and say "that's how it should be done". Something that you can turn to if you need a way to do something. Something that you can use to shame parties who aren't complying.
  • by YGingras ( 605709 ) <ygingras@ygingras.net> on Monday December 04, 2006 @10:47AM (#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)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )
      The ISO certification is just that, ISO has certified the existing standard, so you can download the spec from Oasis or wherever else...
      • After further inspection, it looks like the OASIS standard was approved by ISO without modifications. This is good but I still don't get why ISO charges ~280$ for the PDF...
  • Why the ISO hatred? (Score:3, Informative)

    by PWNT ( 985141 ) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:42PM (#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.
  • The problem with any standard is when people fail to implement it, or its implemented slightly different. I've spent the last couple of months working part-time on a OpenDocument exporter. The two main OpenDocument applications on Linux, OpenOffice and KOffice both supposedly open OpenDocument spreadsheets. However, neither's file's meet the specified standard. Also, I've used files from OpenOffice to try and open them in KOffice, and KOffice crashes on startup. Using files from KOffice to OpenOffice, they
    • but at least you would know when software fails to implement because the standard can be used as a reference for specific tests. Bugs can then be filed against any software that don't pass the test suite and in the long run it's an easier solution
    • by tao ( 10867 )

      What you do is follow the standard and file bug reports against non-compliant applications. Documents that can crash Koffice would probably rate as quite severe bugs (IMHO it shouldn't crash no matter how incorrect input you feed it), and the OpenOffice people probably wants to be able to import Koffice files.

  • The Dancing Paperclip Union is not liking this news. Expect delays.
  • Add to shopping basket Size Price
    ISO/IEC 26300:2006 PDF version (en) 13368 KB CHF 340,00
    ISO/IEC 26300:2006 CD-ROM version (en) CHF 340,00

    Interestingly, I can download the USB standard for free but I need to pay big bucks just to view a copy of the OPEN Document standard online? How OPEN is it when I can't even afford to see it?

    I can download linux from Redhat at no charge, and Redhat is a For-Profit company, yet ISO is a non-profit organization. I can understand charging for the CD,

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27

Working...