Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 31st Oct 2007 19:29 UTC, submitted by WillM
Features, Office A group formed five years ago to promote the OpenDocument Format has abandoned ODF and will favor one developed by the World Wide Web Consortium known as the 'Compound Document Format', or CDF. The OpenDocument Foundation's format failed to meet market requirements, the group said.
Order by: Score:
Just wait a sec
by civean on Wed 31st Oct 2007 19:52 UTC
civean
Member since:
2007-10-31

Before all the discussions start, it's worth noting that this group consists of nothing more than 3 people in a garage somewhere. The real entity behind the ODF format is called the Open Document Alliance. Ergo, that the Open Document Foundation stops promoting the OD Format is totally irrelevant!

Reply Score: 40

RE: Just wait a sec
by Joe User on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "Just wait a sec"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

LOL, I don't know how this made the OSN frontpage :-)

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Just wait a sec
by kensai on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Just wait a sec"
kensai Member since:
2005-12-27

You'll be amazed at the nonsense and irrelevant news that make it through, if it is to say something bad about Linux, is even easier for it to reach the front page. But, 99% of the times it happens, when the news is linke from that particular OSN staff member, (TH).

Reply Score: 12

RE: Just wait a sec
by KenJackson on Wed 31st Oct 2007 21:13 UTC in reply to "Just wait a sec"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

It seems everybody is brushing these three guys and this organization off as irrelevant. I never heard of them before, but I'm not ready to reject them based on the name.

Yes the name is misleading. It is good to know what an organization is and is not when reading what they say, so it's good that you educated us.

But on their own website they say they switched because CDF meets their criteria but ODF won't. Look at what they say their criteria is:

For the past five years we have been hell bent on a quest for a universal file format. We define this elusive quest as an open, un encumbered, universally interoperable structured format compliant with W3C Internet Technologies, completely application, platform and vendor independent, with a trusted governance model that is open Internet - open source community friendly and internationally recognized.

If that's true--and I've heard no one say it isn't--that's admirable, noteworthy and good.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Just wait a sec
by civean on Wed 31st Oct 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Just wait a sec"
civean Member since:
2007-10-31

I haven't said that their organization is irrelevant, or in any way bad, just that their decision to stop supporting ODF is not as relevant as it sounds in the summary. The problem here (and at slashdot, digg etc) is the editors, that present the story as "ODF abandoned, CDF could become the new standard", something that at least made me put my coffee in the wrong throat!

Then, of course if the OD Foundation's real goal is to cause exactly this kind of ruckus, (insert tin foil theories) then their organization deserves critic. But this is mere speculation, and probably unlikely.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Just wait a sec
by Beta on Wed 31st Oct 2007 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Just wait a sec"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

“For the past five years we have been hell bent on a quest for a universal file format.”

What they have spent most of the last few years doing:
Trying to cram extensions into ODF without much thought about why they’re needed, as such they were rejected.
Promoting vapourware (da vinci plugin) for the last few years.
Promoting themselves to all and sundry.
Starting the recent anti-ODF FUD.

If you want to know more about the problems with the foundation, find Bruce D'Arcus online, he was initially a member, but left for good reasons.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Just wait a sec
by Soulbender on Thu 1st Nov 2007 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Just wait a sec"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It seems everybody is brushing these three guys and this organization off as irrelevant. I never heard of them before, but I'm not ready to reject them based on the name.


If your 3-man organization was started 5 years ago and to this date almost no-one cares about you or know who you are it's a pretty safe bet that it's not really important what format you lend support to.

If that's true--and I've heard no one say it isn't--that's admirable, noteworthy and good.


Talk is cheap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Just wait a sec
by Geoff Gigg on Thu 1st Nov 2007 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Just wait a sec"
Geoff Gigg Member since:
2006-01-21

Look at what they say their criteria is:

"For the past five years we have been hell bent on a quest for a universal file format. We define this elusive quest as an open, un encumbered, universally interoperable structured format compliant with W3C Internet Technologies, completely application, platform and vendor independent, with a trusted governance model that is open Internet - open source community friendly and internationally recognized."

If that's true--and I've heard no one say it isn't--that's admirable, noteworthy and good.


Maybe, but it's a completely different goal from that of a standard, which is what ODF attempts to be.

"Universally interoperable" means you seek compatibility with all sorts of formats, which greatly increases needless complexity. By contrast, ODF seeks to be universally supported by given open source and proprietary developers a single, open, rational target to shoot for. Seems like a better goal to me.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Just wait a sec
by WarpKat on Thu 1st Nov 2007 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Just wait a sec"
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

Here's one for you:

HTML.

Although, IE v?.? tends to do weird things with it, even if one follows STANDARDS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Just wait a sec
by sbergman27 on Thu 1st Nov 2007 00:49 UTC in reply to "Just wait a sec"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
it's worth noting that this group consists of nothing more than 3 people in a garage somewhere.
"""

IIRC, 3 people who got kicked out of OASIS and do *not* have a garage. Classic case of sour grapes, I suspect.

Reply Score: 8

drynwhyl
Member since:
2006-05-14

The whole "foundation" consists of three men, who actually have nothing to do with either the development or the promotion of OpenOffice. But they curiously have that name, which makes them look more important than they in fact are. They are not the "Open Document Alliance", which is the real mother organisation backing up and promoting odf, and which you may confuse it with.

The Open Document Foundation (and their opinion about ODF)is as important as if you took two friends and founded a "OOXML Foundation" and then started spewing "facts" about how bad OOXML is to make it look as if "ooxml supporters are turning their backs to ooxml". Thats basically what those three guys there are doing. Astroturfing. Their name is _extremely_ misleading and this should be mentioned in the article.

Dont fall for this astroturf. This was on slashdot yesterday, and was deleted after a few hours after a editor realised what he linked to the frontpage.

Reply Score: 22

distrust anything Hiser touches
by Macrat on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:03 UTC
Macrat
Member since:
2006-03-27

Sam Hiser is simply a con artist trying to attach himself to anything he thinks will make him money.

First he tried to proclaim himself the PR front for OpenOffice.org. Then when get got the boot, she started these other cons like this "foundation."

Reply Score: 12

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21


Sam Hiser is simply a con artist trying to attach himself to anything he thinks will make him money.

First he tried to proclaim himself the PR front for OpenOffice.org. Then when get got the boot, she started these other cons like this "foundation."


She or he? The legibility of your statements needs to be more clear. It's clear that they are not important to ODF but your retort to clarify the matter needs an editor.

Reply Score: 3

v Authenticity and newsworthyness
by saterdaies on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:08 UTC
RE: Authenticity and newsworthyness
by Hands on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:16 UTC in reply to "Authenticity and newsworthyness"
Hands Member since:
2005-06-30

Frankly, I'm not sure what your point is.

Of course this story is newsworthy in its own right. It is worth mentioning the fact that the OpenDocument Foundation has little actual influence on the OpenDocument Format though. There is definitely room for confusion.

With respect to the decision made by the Foundation, I'm curious to know what products actually support CDF.

Reply Score: 3

Znark Member since:
2006-01-09

Nothing currently supports CDF since CDF isn't a file format. It is a framework for combining different formats in a single document. Some browsers already support XHTML files containing SVG and MathML; these are compound documents by inclusion. Normal web pages could be considered compound documents by reference with CSS and SVG being referenced by XHTML. The combination of XHTML, CSS, and XForms are the WICD profile.

I suppose you could declare ODF or OOXML to be in CDF since they have multiple XML languages linked and included together to form a single document.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Authenticity and newsworthyness
by borker on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:28 UTC in reply to "Authenticity and newsworthyness"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

rubish. If the previously MS loving pundit who turned his back ran an organization with a name like 'Microsoft professional services' or something similarly designed to create the impression of close allegiance between the group and parent entity suddenly started announcing things like 'MS tools not suitable from workplace use' or 'Limits in MS tools force recommendation of Apple tools because they work best with emerging linux standards' then this would represent a significant difference to an article by some PC Mag columnist complaining that vista sucks up all their RAM

Reply Score: 5

Trademark infringement
by MechR on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:21 UTC
MechR
Member since:
2006-01-11

So, who holds the trademark for "OpenDocument"? Sounds like lawsuit time.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Trademark infringement
by KenJackson on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "Trademark infringement"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Isn't trademark for "OpenDocument" an oxymoron?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Trademark infringement
by Beta on Wed 31st Oct 2007 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Trademark infringement"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Wouldn’t it only be an oxymoron if it were OpenTrademark?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Trademark infringement
by KenJackson on Wed 31st Oct 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Trademark infringement"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

"Open" (not "document") seems to conflict with "trademark".

Edited 2007-10-31 21:17

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Trademark infringement
by Soulbender on Thu 1st Nov 2007 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Trademark infringement"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Open" (not "document") seems to conflict with "trademark".


No. Trademark protects the name, not the actual specification or the implentation. It's a way to prevent someone from dragging your good name in the mud, so to speak. It has little to do with "Open" and in fact quite a few OSS projects (Nagios, Linux and SpamAssassin for example) are trademarked.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Trademark infringement
by google_ninja on Thu 1st Nov 2007 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Trademark infringement"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Not to mention Firefox, RedHat, and the term "Open Source" itself

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Trademark infringement
by tyrione on Thu 1st Nov 2007 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Trademark infringement"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

No more than Linux being trademarked.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Trademark infringement
by Beta on Wed 31st Oct 2007 21:12 UTC in reply to "Trademark infringement"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I heard OASIS were still considering their options…

Reply Score: 3

who cares?
by antik on Wed 31st Oct 2007 20:56 UTC
antik
Member since:
2006-05-19

RIP OpenDocument Foundation... Long live ODF!

Reply Score: 6

Pardon?
by segedunum on Thu 1st Nov 2007 10:24 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

"We at the OpenDocument Foundation have been displeased with the direction of ODF development this year," wrote Sam Hiser

Errr. Hello?

Reply Score: 2

Let's face it..
by gavin.mccord on Thu 1st Nov 2007 11:32 UTC
gavin.mccord
Member since:
2005-09-07

..when did 3 guys in a garage ever come up with anything useful :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Let's face it..
by phoenix on Thu 1st Nov 2007 22:50 UTC in reply to "Let's face it.."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Never. It's always been two guys and a garage.

Including the third person was their first mistake, and virtually guaranteed their slip into oblivion and irrelevance. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Stick a Neddle in Their Eye
by hylas on Thu 1st Nov 2007 19:31 UTC
hylas
Member since:
2005-07-10

Join the ODF Alliance:

The Alliance is a group of organizations committed to promoting the use of open standards and OpenDocument Format. Membership in the Alliance is open to all organizations that are committed to the Alliance’s mission. If your organization would like to join the Alliance and you are authorized to speak on behalf of your organization,

http://www.odfalliance.org/join.php

We did.

hylas

Reply Score: 1