Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of Office Open XML and OpenDocument

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yannh (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 15 May 2009 (+ Most popular editor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Big problem with this article

It compares (in its central table) ODF with OOXML - but there are at least three distinct versions of each of these specs. If this article is to be of use, some way needs to be found to distinguish exactly which versions are being compared. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG in ODF ?

The table suggest ODF uses SVG but this is not correct. ODF uses some sort of ODF particular SVG variant and some additional 3d draw elements. hAl (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go ahead and fix it. :) Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ODF container

As far as I understand it is close to the Java archive format (JAR). Mayby JAR-like would be a reasonalbe description ?

Yeah, I think you're correct. Go ahead and fix it. :) Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 29500 compatibility and Microsoft Office 2007

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx

"In addition, Microsoft has defined a road map for its implementation of the newly ratified International Standard ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML). IS29500, which was approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in March, is already substantially supported in Office 2007, and the company plans to update that support in the next major version release of the Microsoft Office system, code-named ?Office 14.? "

Substantially supported is not supported.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Protocols+and+Standards&articleId=9089258&taxonomyId=141&pageNumber=1

"Changes were made to Office Open XML between Ecma International's approval of the file format as a standard a year and a half ago and the ISO standards body's ratification of it this spring. Microsoft Corp. won't support the ISO version of its own format until Office 14 arrives around the end of 2009."

Nobody claims that Microsoft Office supports ISO/IEC IS 29500 yet. Though it might be the case that documents conforming to the ECMA 376 1st edition standard are also conforming to ISO/IEC IS 29500 (ECMA 376 2nd edition) because the latter specifies six levels of document and application conformance, strict and transitional for each of WordprocessingML, PresentationML and SpreadsheetML. However, whether you like it our not Microsoft Office still supports Office Open XML.
Please sign your posts in the future. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I have kept your notes on this then, and specified the versions we are comparing. I believe the previous table was implying that microsoft office was supporting the ISO standard. How about separating adding a column for the ISO recognised OOXML, and for ODF 1.2? Yannh (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementations covered by patent license

This doesn't seem correct? According to this: http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-10-04-a.html#nonAssert :

"Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 ."

It seems that Sun Microsystems isn't the only one who owns interlectual property rights for OpenDocument. IBM's Interoperability Specifications Pledge states that: [1]

"Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification. Reference to IBM (or you) includes entities controlled by, controlling, and under common control with IBM (or you), based on majority control.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ODF signatures

According to this http://blogs.sun.com/dancer/entry/dispelling_myths_around_odf , ODF 1.2 supports digital signatures - are we comparing specific versions of ODF and OOXML? Maybe we hould add a table ODF 1.0, 1.1, 1.2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannh (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK ODF 1.2 is nothing more than a draft specification, it is not even an OASIS standard. Since OpenOffice.org's default format is infact an implementation of the ODF 1.2 draft, one might argue that the current version of OpenOffice.org doesn't even use an open standard file format by default. Oh, and btw. if there are really no row/column limitations in the ODF specification, then this means that no version of OpenOffice.org fully conforms to this specification, because all OpenOffice.org versions have row/column limitations.[2] Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this to a plural, as there are quite a few editors for ODF (just cited the most populars though). Is there any reason why we should list only one? Saying that Openoffice is "the most popular" seems subjective to me and lacks sources... Yannh (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Office_Open_XML_and_OpenDocument&oldid=289991775"