[odf-discuss] Alex Brown on OOo ODF validity

[robert_weir at us.ibm.com]

odf-discuss-bounces at opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 05/04/2008 
10:13:13 AM:

> I think you're probably right as to ODF 1.1 >> ISO/IEC:26300 since 
> the changes were fairly trivial. But  might it not be more 
> problematic as to ODF 1.2 >> ISO/IEC:26300? I have in mind here the 
> list enhancement feature and the RDF metadata support, both of which
> I suspect are more widely integrated in the unreleased OOo code base. 
> 

Well, say, hypothetically, that ODF 1.2 is approved by JTC1.  That doesn't 
help anyone who put down in permanent ink "our standard is ODF 1.0", but 
it does give something to use for those who are willing to wait the few 
extra years to have an ISO-approved version.

Standards will evolve and change versions.  With technology standards you 
should expect this to happen frequently, every 2-3 years.  If we want to 
carve out a region of permanence and stability with ODF, then that would 
likely be something like an ODF/A for archiving use. 


> I'd have to think about it some more, but I  suspect the Formula 
> SC's work would not pose a huge problem since this work fills in 
> some unspecified blanks in ISO/IEC:26300. But there are arguments 
> Microsoft could make that ISO/IEC:29500 is now the international 
> standard for spreadsheet formulas, since none were specified in 
ISO/IEC:26300.
> 

There is also the possibility of submitting OpenFormula as an "amendment" 
to ODF 1.0.

> That's why I'd love to see the Formula SC work parted out as a 
> separate standard and sent off to JTC 1 as a candidate replacement 
> for the corresponding chunks of ISO/IEC:29500. It would be a head-
> to-head face-off between vendor neutrality and vendor lock-in with 
> ample support in the Directives and international law. Who knows? 
> W3C might also be recruited in such an effort given that they have 
> corresponding holes in the CDF WICD profiles. Or perhaps try selling
> the Formula SC's work to W3C for incorporation in their work before 
> sending it on to JTC 1. 
> 

I think we eventually end up with more than one formula language.  The 
current set, both OpenFormula and 29500's are firmly wedded to the past, 
attempting to mimic the bugs and warts, to one degree or another of 
Microsoft Excel.  To some extent this is necessary because this is what 
users are familiar with.  Moving off of this is like moving from a QWERTY 
to a Dvorak keyboard.  There is too much initial productivity loss for 
most users to move.

But I can see a formula language, that by its simplicity, elegance and 
power, provides enough benefit that some users will move to it.  Think of 
it -- spreadsheet formulas date back to 1985 or so, before object oriented 
programming, before C++, before any of the modern functional languages we 
play with today, etc.  Imagine if we could bring 25 years of language 
design experience to the spreadsheet and give it even basic concepts such 
as type safety, unit checking, anonymous functions, etc.

Or maybe we just radically simplify things for spreadsheet formulas. There 
is a digital divide out there.  I had a co-worked, fresh out of college 
who did a summer work-abroad development project in Botswana, at a meat 
processing factory.  He helped out in the back office.  When he arrived, 
he found that they were using an old version of Microsoft Excel.  They had 
to produce reports in Excel format, because that is what their main office 
required.  So the office worker showed how he prepared the reports.  He 
took a stack of daily production notes and reached for his desk calculator 
where he proceeded to execute each calculation and then enter the result 
into the appropriate cell in Excel.  In other words, they didn't use Excel 
to do calculations at all, they used it as a form, and did calculations on 
the calculator. 

What can we do to make spreadsheet calculations simpler and easier to 
learn?

> Returning to the subject at hand, might not OOo also require some 
> reprogramming as to processing markup expressed in ODF 1.1 and ODF 
> 1.2 but not in ISO/IEC:26300? Governments would still be receiving 
> files in those two formats. 
> 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Ideally, I'd like to see an 
application offer the user a choice on the save menu "Save as ODF 1.0", 
"Save as ODF 1.1", "Save as ODF 1.2" and the ability to set a default. But 
at current speed and course, OOo 3.0 will probably save as ODF 1.2 as 
default, while preserving the ability of reading ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 
documents.

> And perhaps most importantly, would Sun allow the code to be 
> committed to the OOo code base? Sun's control of the commit rights 
> has long been a sore issue. See e.g., <http://www.computerworld.com/
> action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9037499>. 
> 

I have no idea.  But I assume that they are not immune to customer 
requirements.  I know IBM is not.  We're seeing that more deployments 
demand the accessibility fixes in ODF 1.1 than are demanding ODF 1.0's ISO 
Odour of Sanctity.  A deployer of new technology is far more likely to 
receive a Rehabilitation Act complaint for having an application that is 
not accessible than they are to hear from the WTO for using ODF 1.1.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080504/ea47031c/attachment-0001.htm