[odf-discuss] Sun's ODF Plug-ins

[Ian Lynch]

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 18:46 -0700, marbux wrote:


> I know of no one still planning to develop high fidelity native file
> support filters in MS Office for ODF.

Patience. Wait until the dust settles and lots of people start using MS
Office 2007, passing files around in that format by e-mail. If that
doesn't happen its game over anyway but whether or not MS get ISO its
likely to. If so, Sun will do it. Look at the effort they put into .doc
filters. Google have an interest too and they could certainly afford it.

>  As I understand it, Sun has managed to decode enough of the Microsoft
> native file support APIs to patch those APIs to a portion of the OOo
> code base that functions largely as a pre/post processor. That allows
> ODF to appear in the MS Office file open and save dialogs. But the Sun
> plug-ins offer no higher fidelity  conversions than OOo's filters for
> the Microsoft binary formats that lack of fidelity disqualifies it for
> use in existing Microsoft-bound business processes. 

Why put the time and resource in until you have to? There are many
things competing for resources so if I was a manager in Sun I'd be
biding my time to see what happens. Going from where they are now (very
good .doc filters that they are continuing to refine) to a high fidelity
bi-directional MOOX filter (It might well be impossible to do a perfect
filter in any case) could be quite quick but why bother if most people
are using .doc and you have a good filter for that?

> To our knowledge, the OpenDocument Foundation had the only development
> team working on an ODF app/MS Office high fidelity round trip interop
> solution. But we have abandoned all ODF development work because of
> the ODF TC's hostility to high fidelity round-trip interop, both with
> other vendors' solutions such as MS Office and among ODF
> applications. 

With respect, the resources that say Google could apply to this at the
flick of a switch would make anything we could do through the fellowship
or the Foundation pale to insignificance. Google have ODF apps so if a
lot of people start using MOOX files you can bet they will implement
MOOX filters. They might even go MOOX native but I think that
politically they probably wouldn't want to. Whatever the outcome its
going to get steadily easier to move files between various apps and MS
Office. That will give people confidence that they don't have to use MS
products so there will be a further drift to free products and MS will
have to drop their prices. All they are doing is putting off the evil
day. Of course that further enables the migration from the desktop to
the web as platform. Give it 10 years because of the inertia in the
system and delaying tactics like this ISO stuff.

> We intend to make an announcement next week at the annual Office 2.0
> Conference in San Francisco regarding the interoperability framework,
> XML languages, and licensing scheme we will be working with for the
> foreseeable future. We do not anticipate that ODF will be on our
> development roadmap before such time as the specification acquires:
> [i] an interoperability framework; [ii] interoperability conformance
> requirements; and [iii] at least one conformant implementation is
> available. 

So will MOOX be on your development road map? The problem with road maps
that don't incorporate the formats used by the main applications in the
space is that they are very slow to get adopted. Look at svg as an
example. You need the IBMs, Suns, Microsofts and Oracles. Even odf has
had a hard time despite having IBM, Sun and Google backing it. Linux has
only accelerated to its current position since the big industry players
decided it was a good idea.

> Exceptions are conceivable for ODF application types whose developers
> have agreed to support the interop framework we will be working with
> and standard subsets/profiles of ODF with agreed interoperability
> conformance requirements. 
> 
> We will, however, continue to push for the ODF standard to be amended
> to acquire the necessary interoperability features and conformance
> requirements. That work includes opposing ODF 1.2 at ISO if it emerges
> from OASIS in the form we anticipate.

What with Microsoft as an ally? They are about the only mainstream
player likely to back such a move.

> So there is no doubt, we will continue opposing standardization of
> Microsoft Office Open XML. But software users deserve more than a
> choice of evils and "interoperability someday" public relations
> statements by big vendors. Those who treat "open" and
> "interoperability" as synonyms have done software users a tremendous
> disservice. They are not synonyms. 

So it will be the Foundation against the rest of the World? Forking odf
to something more interoperable? Its good to have idealism, we need it.
Stallman is a good example but Stallman on his own would never have
achieved the progress towards software freedom we now enjoy. We also
need pragmatism - can we improve things rather than can we achieve
perfection in one step. The fact is that ODF as it stands is the most
viable way of achieving both interoperability and openness since it can
evolve, has significant industry backing and is widely implemented. MOOX
is worse but still probably better than .doc.  The situation now is a
lot better than it was 5 years ago but it is in a state of re-ordering
chaos to an extent. Maybe the Foundation can modify odf to be more
interoperable but who will actually use it? Where does the resource come
from to maintain and develop it?

Good luck.

Ian
-- 
New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications
www.theINGOTs.org

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.