Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

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This discussion has been archived.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

OpenDocument Foundation Closes

Comments Filter:
  • by JamesRose ( 1062530 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @03:43PM (#21315407)
    Oh come on, you were all thinking it.
  • by Eco-Mono ( 978899 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @03:59PM (#21315557) Homepage
    For what it's worth to you, it's been known for some time that the Open Document Foundation doesn't represent any actual source of authority vis-a-vis ODF - nobody's really sure what the organization was for to begin with. More info in this (oft-linked) blog entry [].
  • Re:In related news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pilsner.urquell ( 734632 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @04:42PM (#21315873)

    The Republican Party released a similar piece saying the party was unsuitable for use in a Democracy. "We wish all the good luck too our Democratic colleagues in sustaining the intent of the US Constitution."
    That would only be true if we lived in a Democracy. Your statement indicates you don't know what kind of government you live under, I recommend you look it up.
  • Re:In related news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @05:04PM (#21316023)
    That would only be true if we lived in a Democracy. Your statement indicates you don't know what kind of government you live under, I recommend you look it up.



  • by mlauzon ( 818714 ) <mlauzon@gmail. c o m> on Sunday November 11, 2007 @05:21PM (#21316155) Homepage
    Why is this still making news, it has already been found out that the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. has nothing to do with the OpenDocument Alliance...the real organisation behind ODF; so I ask again why this is still making news?!

  • Re:Fishy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pablochacin ( 1061488 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @05:30PM (#21316225)
    Yes, Microsoft is a large member of W3C as almost any body else is the industry like IBM, SUN, HP and som 400 (four hundred) other companies. Please, give me a break, stop thinking that if some one doesn't agree with an open source project and prises that big pile of crap called Open Office, then is been paid by Microsoft.
  • by The Iso ( 1088207 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @07:38PM (#21317197)
    They were never a "big organisation behind ODF." They were two guys who picked an authoritative-sounding name at got invited to conferences.
  • Re:Now (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 ) <robert@c[ ] ['hro' in gap]> on Sunday November 11, 2007 @10:32PM (#21318451)

    Redmond is the most likely culprit in this case so the addage NEVER... NEVER trust Redmond would be appropriate.

    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)

    by Kalriath ( 849904 ) on Sunday November 11, 2007 @11:27PM (#21318939)
    Well, yes, but their original point is sound. It seems that anyone who expresses even the slightest disagreement with Open Office (and the associated ODF) is immediately called down as a "MS Shill" or "Paid by Microsoft".

    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)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @10:48AM (#21323151) Homepage Journal
    Actually, office document formats are essentially programming languages (or perhaps even something approaching a virtual machine specification) that are optimized for easy program generation by user tools.

    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.
  • We don't need a foundation. all we need is popular usage....

    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.

  • by greedyturtle ( 968401 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @12:49PM (#21324683)
    I'm sensing a business plan here, plug a free, alternate version of something M$ doesn't want to succeed until they show up to bribe you. It's remarkably similar to the old business plan of creating a startup with a product better than something M$ already offers and wait for them to buy you out and let your former company (now a div of microsoft) flounder and collapse.
  • Re:Now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @01:48PM (#21325421) Homepage
    Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?

    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.

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal