[odf-discuss] Fwd: W3C Lead on CDF says OpenDocument Fellowship
Position on CDF Makes No Sense
J David Eisenberg
catcode at catcode.com
Sat Nov 10 12:08:34 EST 2007
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Gary Edwards wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
> Chris Lilley's comments are in direct opposition to those we received a week
> ago from Doug Shepers, the head of the CDF Workgroup. doug however asked
> that we not publicise his comments until Sir Timothy has had a chance to
> weigh in. Our CDF support is solid. Even within Sun and IBM!!!! They've
> been arguing for years that CDF is the way to go. Today IBM admitted to us
> that ODF is a transitional fiel format only. They know that CDF is the
> future, and have spent enormous resources positioning WebSphere, Lotus
> Notes, and the Eclipse Community in that direction. ODF is a transitional
> desktop play only.
I have yet to see how CDF exhibits "compatibility with existing MS
> The ODF mob has gone nuts trying to shut off the exits. The worst thing
> they could have ever done is attack CDF. Watch. IBM admits that they lit
> the fire, and now they can't control the tmob. The plan was to discredit us
> personally. Now that CDF is under attack by the mob, IBM CALLED US, asking
> for help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was a two plus
> hour phone conference this afternoon. I kid you not.
I don't think anyone is "attacking" CDF. I, for one, like SVG, XForms, and
XHTML, and having them talk to one another is a wonderful and elegant
idea--but as I see it, there's a huge impedance mismatch between, say, a
spreadsheet replete with formulas and the technologies of CDF (even if you
include ECMAScript as required by the CDF Full 1.0).
There's also the pagination/printing problem. Without a working
implementation of CSS 3, that's a *huge* problem.
> But hey, thanks for staying on top of this :)
J. David Eisenberg http://catcode.com/
More information about the odf-discuss