[odf-discuss] A story of TIFF

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 04:06 -0800, marbux wrote:
> I think you've missed something somewhere along the line. 65 % interop
> with OOo was what was achieved by the August version of da Vinci that
> was based on ODF 1.0 with its optional foreign metadata tags. My
> understanding is that the current version using the proposed ODF 1.2
> changes already achieves near-perfect interop in both directions

How is that possible considering that ODF 1.2 doesn't exist yet, much
less it's implemented in OOo. Are we using the same definition of
"interoperability"? My definition is essentially that if you save a file
in application A you can open it in application B with only minimal
differences (the definition of minimal is context dependent). So, in
response to ODF 1.2 and interoperability: (1) I am not aware of any
planned feature in ODF 1.2 that will remove the binary blobs that the
Foundation plugin currently uses. (2) Since OOo doesn't support ODF 1.2
(because it doesn't exist), it seems logically impossible to say that
the current version of the plugin achieves near-perfect interop in both
directions. You can, however, say that you expect that it *will*. At
which point we'll want to know more details as to why.

> >That's the problem: setting up proprietary ODF formats
> > which only certain apps have any hope of reading. It's detrimental to ODF.
> 
> I won't say much here because your quoted sentences were apparently
> based on a misimpression of what the current da Vinci build does.

Are you saying that the da Vinci plugin does *not* insert unknown binary
blogs ("dark objects") into ODF files which cannot be understood by
other applications?

> [snip] I think you have to balance the drawbacks against the benefits.

I'm glad that you recognize the existence of drawbacks. Almost every
option in life has both drawbacks and benefits and decisions should
almost always be a balancing act between the two.

> The benefits to users are tremendous. They don't have to use MS Office
> just to maintain interop with it;

Any plugin that can successfully convert ODF into EOXML or an internal
MS Office representation will achieve this goal. This is not a case in
favour of binary extensions.

> If ODF were a set of formats designed only for a single office suite
> and nothing else, and flawless interop with MS Office was not a market
> requirement, then I'd say, sure, keep all the foreign metadata out.

You seem to think that those binary blobs will achieve interop. Or maybe
you have a different definition of interop. But interop as I defined it
above, is not fixed by adding binary dark objects. I'm not aware of
anyone who proposes otherwise. What the unknown binary blobs accomplish,
provided that applications don't drop them (as expected in ODF 1.2), is
round-tripping: Say I have MS Office, and you have OOo. I send you a
file. It looks like crap on your system, but you make an edit anyways
and send it back. I would still be able to see all the items that you
could not see. In this situation we do not have interoperability. What
we have is MS Office round-tripping.


-- 
May you live in interesting times.
May people in high places take notice of you.
May all your wishes come true.
  -- Chinese curse.