[odf-discuss] Miguel on OXML

[Daniel Carrera]

On Thu, 2007-01-02 at 08:56 -0800, marbux wrote:
> Miguel should have alerted his readers that he was touching on an area
> that has been highly controversial

Why? And calling it "file format wars" and "heated" doesn't count?

Maybe by "controversial" you mean "knowledgeable people disagree on this
point". But to my knowledge, the only technical point he made that is
disputable is about image formats.

[new topic: Foundation plugin]
> The tags they are using are the optional tags
> from the ODF spec's section 1.5 for handling of foreign elements.

You keep saying that as if there were any optional tags in section 1.5.
I've asked you to read that section. Have you read it yet? It's very
short, and not technical. I assure you that anyone can understand it. It
says that you are allowed to fabricate your own tags and attributes as
long as you do it in your own namespace.

Please please please read section 1.5 of the spec and try to understand
it before saying more about it.

> They
> aren't Microsoft-specific tags, although my understanding is that
> adding compatibility with the Microsoft binary formats was a strong
> consideration in the section's addition to the spec.

You clearly haven't read that section, inspite of my insisting that you
do so. That's why you have such fundamental misunderstandings about it.
There are *no* tags in that section.

> What the Foundation's plugin does has absolutely nothing to do with
> OXML.

What the Foundation plugin does is functionally equivalent to what we
suggest OXML should be: An extension of ODF.

> That means, for example, that if a migrated file
> comes up with incorrect formatting or some such problem, the file can
> be reopened in Microsoft Office for repair work or viewing because the
> unmappable elements are preserved in ODF, wrapped in
> <foreign></foreign> tags.

ODF does not have <foreign> tags, or equivalent. It allows you to define
your own namespace.

> But until then, I'm told that only full fidelity (no data loss) can be
> achieved, not full interoperability.  I think it would aid discussion
> on this list if we could clearly delineate in our discussions of the
> Foundation's work between "full fidelity" and "full interoperability."
> The latter necessary implies "full fidelity" as well, but in the
> present context, "full fidelity" does not necessarily imply "full
> interoperability," e.g., "full fidelity" will often be a subset of
> "full interoperability." We need to be clear whether we are discussing
> one or the other concepts if we wish to achieve clear communication.

Instead of making confusing definitions for existing terms, wouldn't it
be easier to say this:  The Foundation plugin uses an ODF extension to
store whatever information it can't map to ODF. When the file is read
back by MS Office, the plugin can put those blobs back where it found
them. This extension, of course, does nothing for interoperability but
at least MS Office can access those binary blobs.

Daniel.
-- English is essentially Plattdeutsch as spoken by a Frisian pretending
to be French.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070201/bfe12f7f/attachment-0001.pgp