[odf-discuss] A bit more detailed explanation of the AFNOR position

[marbux]

On 9/25/07, Lars Noodén <lars at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> marbux wrote:
> > <
> >
> http://www.infotechfrance.com/cgi-local/affichage_signets.pl?UNI_ID=8&RUB_ID=53&SIG_ID=4304&actu=1
> >
>
> Interesting that MS has been able to get AFNOR to help derail work on
> open standards for office documents.


I would like to get a good translation of the AFNOR comments before coming
to a decision on that issue. But there is tremendous support for convergence
of ODF and OOXML among NB comments that were submitted in English, also from
E.U. eGovernment types.

The latter want a converged set of formats with ODF providing the common
features. And so far, what I've read about the AFNOR comments are not
crystal clear on whether it is calling for ODF as the base or OOXML as the
base. But so far, it does seem clear that AFNOR is proposing to delay OOXML,
not ODF, although I would not be surprised to see ODF 1.2 derailed at ISO
because of ODF's severe interop warts. I know we are going to be pushing
that issue.

But French eGovernment is much farther along on ODF adoption and
implementation than any other Developed Nation national government I know
of. One would hope that they've managed to align their eGovernment and NB
standardization body work.

I'd be curious to know which "experts" ANFOR refers to when making the
> claim that "experts have shown that a convergence is feasible between
> OOXML and the ODF format"


I don't know, but they may be referring to work that's been underway for
some time at a German institute. I haven't heard of comparable work being
done in France.


MSOOXML is still largely unfinished, unpublished, and unimplementable by
> third parties.  Thus, MSOOXML is still a moving target.


I distinguish between DIS 29500 (Ecma 376) and Microsoft's OOXML. They are
not one and the same, with DIS 29500 a crippled subset of MOOXML. There is
no reference editor for DIS 29500, just as there is no reference editor for
ODF. Neither standard has a reference editor that can write "pure" ODF or
DIS 29500. I.e., OOo writes to ODF + application-specific eXtensions that
are not part of the ODF specification.


> Until such time as it is finished and published to an extent that a
> third party can implement it, any work with it at the international
> level serves no other purpose but to waste limited time and resources,
> and to cause delay.  The latter is probably the primary goal.


My sense is that the NBs that are pushing the convergence issue are aimed at
modifying DIS 29500 to an extent that Microsoft will be both unable and
unwilling to implement it.

E.g., BSI is pushing a number of issues affecting page breaks and
subdocuments, to harmonize ODF and DIS 29500, that I'm 99.99 percent certain
Microsoft can't implement in MS Word without rewriting Word from the ground
up. Word is still running an ancient 16-bit page layout engine and changes
in subdocuments that can span page breaks, e.g., tables and footnotes, have
been off limits to Word developers for more than a decade, even to repair
data loss bugs. For example, Word eats footnotes called from the
continuation portion of a table that spans pages and has done so at least
since Word 97.

Another example, very many NBs are pushing interop issues with ODF, and the
last thing I expect Microsoft to do is to enable real interop with ODF apps.
I sincerely doubt that any of the NBs pushing interop issues expect
Microsoft to do so either.


Anyway, the time for radical changes to ODF (now ISO/IEC 26300)
> was back during the first years.  Better to focus on UOF and drop
> time-wasters like MSOOXML.  Regardless of how much time AFNOR hopes to
> waste, and drag others into wasting, on MS OOXML, hope that while doing
> so, that they at least move ahead on deploying ISO/IEC 26300.


ODF in its present condition is generally a non-starter for eGovernment. It
has no interop framework whatsoever and no interop conformance
requiremements. I've been warning for over 1-1/2 years that ODF was winning
government adoption decisions but that there were darned few implementations
other than new programs and programs with negligible data retention
requirements such as educational programs.

My impression based on our discussions with government CIOs is that
government IT departments have been generally waiting for high-fidelity
interop tools so they can integrate ODF apps in existing Microsoft-bound
business processes and move forward with ODF without unacceptable data
lossiness.  There is presently no way to integrate ODF apps in a SOA that
already has MS Office data silos because of unacceptable lossiness in
conversions.  See e.g., <
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-migratesoa/> ("Systems must
be developed where heterogeneity is fundamental to the environment, because
they must accommodate an endless variety of hardware, operating systems,
middleware, languages, and data stores. The cumulative effect of decades of
growth and evolution has produced severe complexity. With all these business
challenges for IT, it is no wonder that application integration tops the
priority list of many CIOs"). See also survey results immediately following
the quoted text, and <
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-soa-adaptleg/>:

> Because most companies have a significant investment in their legacy
> infrastructure, *management is typically not open to ripping out and
> replacing legacy systems,* regardless of the level of shortcomings evident
> in the infrastructure. Rewriting or significantly modifying large portions
> of a legacy environment is neither practical nor realistically
> accomplishable in a reasonable time frame."
>
> (Emphasis added.)

The indifference of the ODF TC and ODF advocates to the interop issue has
been truly stunning, to the point that no one is even working on the problem
now. We took ODF off of our development road map because of that
indifference. ODF is non-interoperable without lossiness, even among ODF
apps let alone with MS Office.

Best regards,

BUCK "MARBUX" MARTIN
  Director of Legal Affairs
  OpenDocument Foundation
  Contact:
<http://www.opendocumentfoundation.us/contact.htm>
-- Universal Interop Now!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070925/c12a23ae/attachment-0001.html