From jeanweber at gmail.com Sat Jul 10 23:08:46 2010 From: jeanweber at gmail.com (Jean Weber) Date: Sat Jul 10 23:16:02 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] RSS feed for news section In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Friday, June 25, 2010, Arie Skliarouk wrote: > Hi, > > Can RSS feed be added to the news section of the site? > http://opendocumentfellowship.com/news > > I guess that much more people will subscribe to RSS than to a mailing list... > -- > Arie > The Fellowship itself does not have much news, and we don't have volunteers regularly adding other people's news to our page, so an RSS feed seems not so useful. If someone had the time to add one and knows how, then I think it's OK to do it. The mailing list is intended for discussions of relevant topics, which may not be news items. It serves a different purpose. Jean From robert_weir at us.ibm.com Sun Jul 11 11:34:21 2010 From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com (robert_weir@us.ibm.com) Date: Sun Jul 11 12:00:01 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] ODF 1.2 60-day Public Review started In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The notice is here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201007/msg00004.html This is the first public review of the complete ODF 1.2, all the parts, including for the first time the OpenFormula draft. Regards, -Rob From worldlabel at gmail.com Mon Jul 26 18:23:19 2010 From: worldlabel at gmail.com (WorldLabel.com) Date: Mon Jul 26 19:16:31 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] OpenDocument 1.2 available for review for 60 days Message-ID: The complete draft of version 1.2 of the OpenDocument (ODF) standard was made publicly available at the end of last week. Developers, potential users and other interested parties are invited to submit their comments on the draft before the 6th of September. Before the end of the fourth quarter of 2010, the members of the OASIS working group lead by Rob Weir, followed by the entire OASIS (Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) membership, will vote on whether to adopt the draft as an official OASIS standard. http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenDocument-1-2-available-for-review-for-60-days-1038394.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20100726/92472410/attachment.html From worldlabel at gmail.com Wed Jul 28 11:42:24 2010 From: worldlabel at gmail.com (WorldLabel.com) Date: Wed Jul 28 11:47:53 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] ODF has been proposed as Indonesian National Format Message-ID: The news can be read here: http://www.detikinet.com/read/2010/07/28/151112/1408538/398/dokumen-negara-wajib-gunakan-format-odf/?i991103105 (in Indonesian) Translations to English can be read here http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=id&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.detikinet.com%2Fread%2F2010%2F07%2F28%2F151112%2F1408538%2F398%2Fdokumen-negara-wajib-gunakan-format-odf%2F%3Fi991103105 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20100728/2f6da64b/attachment.htm From damon at corigo.com Thu Jul 29 16:29:39 2010 From: damon at corigo.com (Damon Anderson) Date: Thu Jul 29 17:32:42 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification Message-ID: While I would love to join OASIS, I am not currently solvent enough to do so. This leaves the question of how can us common plebeians can effect change in the specification. For example, I frequently enter user bugs that are rejected by developers because they are contrary to the specification. Which is right and good, the devs must follow the spec. This is further complicated by the standard, and well known conflict between what users consider critical, and what devs consider critical. To put it simply, entering bugs does not seem to be getting users the changes they feel are essential to USABILITY, which, after all, is the only real way to compete with MS et al. IMHO OOo development has now long suffered from featuritis, and common user issues (no matter how big the flame wars) continue to go un-fixed. Again, understandable. From a dev view, building a new feature or function, is much easier, and more glamorous, than sorting through old code, or challenging current spec definitions. So back to my question. How can I (the pleb) request a change to the specification. Where is my channel? (That is short of tracking down Mr. Weir's email address and harassing an already busy fellow.) -Damon -------------- next part -------------- Skipped content of type multipart/related From andy at the-martin-byrd.net Thu Jul 29 18:11:26 2010 From: andy at the-martin-byrd.net (Andy Brown) Date: Thu Jul 29 18:31:55 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C51FC8E.70900@the-martin-byrd.net> Damon Anderson wrote: > While I would love to join OASIS, I am not currently solvent enough to > do so. This leaves the question of how can us common plebeians can > effect change in the specification. For example, I frequently enter user > bugs that are rejected by developers because they are contrary to the > specification. Which is right and good, the devs must follow the spec. > This is further complicated by the standard, and well known conflict > between what users consider critical, and what devs consider critical. > To put it simply, entering bugs does not seem to be getting users the > changes they feel are essential to USABILITY, which, after all, is the > only real way to compete with MS et al. > > IMHO OOo development has now long suffered from featuritis, and common > user issues (no matter how big the flame wars) continue to go un-fixed. > Again, understandable. From a dev view, building a new feature or > function, is much easier, and more glamorous, than sorting through old > code, or challenging current spec definitions. > > So back to my question. How can I (the pleb) request a change to the > specification. Where is my channel? (That is short of tracking down Mr. > Weir's email address and harassing an already busy fellow.) > > -Damon Hi Damon, There is a link on http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office that allows a person to join the TC. Good luck. Andy From robert_weir at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 29 18:29:25 2010 From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com (robert_weir@us.ibm.com) Date: Thu Jul 29 19:08:15 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Damon, Fortunately, I never sleep and I am everywhere simultaneously, like a quantum wave with insomnia. To answer your question on submitting comments. You'll find that many standards bodies have what is called a "public comment period" or "public review" period where they solicit for comments from the public. For ODF 1.2 we are in the midst of a 60-day public review, which will end September 6th. More information is here: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/odf12-public-review.html The official OASIS announcement is here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201007/msg00004.html You can submit comments by following the instructions here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=office We're also in the process of developing a list of priorities for "ODF-Next" the version of ODF to follow version 1.2. So this is the perfect time to make new feature proposals. Regards, -Rob odf-discuss-bounces@opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 07/29/2010 04:29:39 PM: > From: > > "Damon Anderson" > > While I would love to join OASIS, I am not currently solvent enough > to do so. This leaves the question of how can us common plebeians > can effect change in the specification. For example, I frequently > enter user bugs that are rejected by developers because they are > contrary to the specification. Which is right and good, the devs > must follow the spec. This is further complicated by the standard, > and well known conflict between what users consider critical, and > what devs consider critical. To put it simply, entering bugs does > not seem to be getting users the changes they feel are essential to > USABILITY, which, after all, is the only real way to compete with MS et al. > > IMHO OOo development has now long suffered from featuritis, and > common user issues (no matter how big the flame wars) continue to go > un-fixed. Again, understandable. From a dev view, building a new > feature or function, is much easier, and more glamorous, than > sorting through old code, or challenging current spec definitions. > > So back to my question. How can I (the pleb) request a change to > the specification. Where is my channel? (That is short of tracking > down Mr. Weir's email address and harassing an already busy fellow.) > > -Damon From marbux at gmail.com Thu Jul 29 18:59:24 2010 From: marbux at gmail.com (marbux) Date: Thu Jul 29 19:28:44 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Damon Anderson wrote: > While I would love to join OASIS, I am not currently solvent enough to do > so. This leaves the question of how can us common plebeians can effect > change in the specification. For example, I frequently enter user bugs that > are rejected by developers because they are contrary to the specification. > Which is right and good, the devs must follow the spec. This is further > complicated by the standard, and well known conflict between what users > consider critical, and what devs consider critical. To put it simply, > entering bugs does not seem to be getting users the changes they feel are > essential to USABILITY, which, after all, is the only real way to compete > with MS et al. > IMHO OOo development has now long suffered from featuritis, and common user > issues (no matter how big the flame wars) continue to go un-fixed. Again, > understandable. From a dev view, building a new feature or function, is much > easier, and more glamorous, than sorting through old code, or challenging > current spec definitions. > So back to my question. How can I (the pleb) ?request a change to the > specification. Where is my channel? (That is short of tracking down Mr. > Weir's email address and harassing an already busy fellow.) In my experience, even joining the ODF TC does little good in terms of getting specification defects dealt with. The big vendor-dominated TC is amazingly indifferent to interoperability bugs in the specification. What does seem to work is to file the bug reports with the ODF TC and notify a national standardization body delegate to ISO/IEC JTC 1's SC 34 who is willing to carry the ball to get the bug filed as a maintenance request from their national standardization body. The ODF TC ignores those only at risk of losing official responsibility for maintaining ODF. Murata Makoto of Japan and Alex Brown of the UK are two such NB delegates. -- Universal Interoperability Council From damon at corigo.com Thu Jul 29 19:34:01 2010 From: damon at corigo.com (Damon Anderson) Date: Thu Jul 29 19:34:09 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ah Rob, that's what amazes me about you. How do you do it? (I know rhetorical question). I also love kicking up the chaff in this forum every once in a while. Good to see Marbux still around. So what I really want to know, Rob, is the status on the minimum spec. The subset of ODF compliance that is "testable," or required to achieve basic ODF compliance (and excluding the advanced features). Any progress on that project? Would love to read that spec. -Damon On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:29:25 -0700, wrote: > Hi Damon, > > Fortunately, I never sleep and I am everywhere simultaneously, like a > quantum wave with insomnia. > > To answer your question on submitting comments. You'll find that many > standards bodies have what is called a "public comment period" or "public > review" period where they solicit for comments from the public. For ODF > 1.2 we are in the midst of a 60-day public review, which will end > September 6th. > > More information is here: > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/odf12-public-review.html > > The official OASIS announcement is here: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201007/msg00004.html > > You can submit comments by following the instructions here: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=office > > We're also in the process of developing a list of priorities for > "ODF-Next" the version of ODF to follow version 1.2. So this is the > perfect time to make new feature proposals. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > odf-discuss-bounces@opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 07/29/2010 > 04:29:39 PM: > >> From: >> >> "Damon Anderson" >> >> While I would love to join OASIS, I am not currently solvent enough >> to do so. This leaves the question of how can us common plebeians >> can effect change in the specification. For example, I frequently >> enter user bugs that are rejected by developers because they are >> contrary to the specification. Which is right and good, the devs >> must follow the spec. This is further complicated by the standard, >> and well known conflict between what users consider critical, and >> what devs consider critical. To put it simply, entering bugs does >> not seem to be getting users the changes they feel are essential to >> USABILITY, which, after all, is the only real way to compete with MS et > al. >> >> IMHO OOo development has now long suffered from featuritis, and >> common user issues (no matter how big the flame wars) continue to go >> un-fixed. Again, understandable. From a dev view, building a new >> feature or function, is much easier, and more glamorous, than >> sorting through old code, or challenging current spec definitions. >> >> So back to my question. How can I (the pleb) request a change to >> the specification. Where is my channel? (That is short of tracking >> down Mr. Weir's email address and harassing an already busy fellow.) >> >> -Damon > > _______________________________________________ > odf-discuss mailing list > odf-discuss@opendocumentfellowship.com > http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss > -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From robert_weir at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 30 08:44:58 2010 From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com (robert_weir@us.ibm.com) Date: Fri Jul 30 13:53:54 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: odf-discuss-bounces@opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 07/29/2010 07:34:01 PM: > > So what I really want to know, Rob, is the status on the minimum spec. The > subset of ODF compliance that is "testable," or required to achieve basic > ODF compliance (and excluding the advanced features). Any progress on that > project? Would love to read that spec. > Marbux, you should take a look at the ODF 1.2 public review draft, particularly the new conformance clauses. If you have specific comments, you know what to do with them. Same process as before, submit to office-comments list. Also, you should look at the "State of ODF Interoperability" report, from the OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC. It expresses the consensus of that TC on what factors most impact interoperability. After the experience of participating in six international, multi-implementation interoperability workshops, my expert opinion is that your previously stated concerns are not highly relevant to the level of interoperability that users experience in their ODF editors today. BTW, any luck with your da Vinci Plugin, the one that gives perfect interoperability with MS Office? Regards, -Rob From marbux at gmail.com Fri Jul 30 17:00:41 2010 From: marbux at gmail.com (marbux) Date: Fri Jul 30 17:08:16 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:44 AM, wrote: > Marbux, you should take a look at the ODF 1.2 public review draft, > particularly the new conformance clauses. ?If you have specific comments, > you know what to do with them. ?Same process as before, submit to > office-comments list. > > Also, you should look at the "State of ODF Interoperability" report, from > the OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC. ?It expresses the > consensus of that TC on what factors most impact interoperability. ?After > the experience of participating in six international, multi-implementation > interoperability workshops, my expert opinion is that your previously > stated concerns are not highly relevant to the level of interoperability > that users experience in their ODF editors today. > > BTW, any luck with your da Vinci Plugin, the one that gives perfect > interoperability with MS Office? I'd normally enjoy dissecting your blather, Rob, but I'm in the midst of debugging 34 shipping scripts after 78 API name changes, whilst watching the release date march steadily toward me. Some other time, okay? Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council From marbux at gmail.com Fri Jul 30 17:33:54 2010 From: marbux at gmail.com (marbux) Date: Fri Jul 30 17:34:17 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, wrote: > We're also in the process of developing a list of priorities for > "ODF-Next" the version of ODF to follow version 1.2. ?So this is the > perfect time to make new feature proposals. I've got a feature proposal: An ODF specification that specifies [i] "any objectively definable 'features', 'qualities', 'attributes', or other 'distinguishing mark'" [ii] of an identifiable product or group of products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms, as required by international law. WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos, (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 12 March 2001; HTML version), para. 66-70, ; reaffirmed, WTDS 231 EC - Sardines (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 26 September 2002), pp. 41-51, . See also Dave Pawson, Interoperability, Validation and Testability, NodeSets (6 June 2009), : "ODF 1.1 and 1.2 are not written as system specifications or software requirement specifications, i.e. not written in a manner which naturally leads to validation and hence interoperability. Put simply, very few statements [in the specs] can be used to generate either automated or manual tests of an implementation against the specification, which is how an implementation should be judged, IMHO." Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council From robert_weir at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 30 18:00:45 2010 From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com (robert_weir@us.ibm.com) Date: Fri Jul 30 19:51:01 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: odf-discuss-bounces@opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 07/30/2010 05:33:54 PM: > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, wrote: > > We're also in the process of developing a list of priorities for > > "ODF-Next" the version of ODF to follow version 1.2. So this is the > > perfect time to make new feature proposals. > > I've got a feature proposal: An ODF specification that specifies [i] > "any objectively definable 'features', 'qualities', 'attributes', or > other 'distinguishing mark'" [ii] of an identifiable product or group > of products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms, as > required by international law. WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos, (World Trade > Organization Appellate Body; 12 March 2001; HTML version), para. > 66-70, ; > reaffirmed, WTDS 231 EC - Sardines (World Trade Organization Appellate > Body; 26 September 2002), pp. 41-51, > . > Marbux, you know the drill. Proposals need to be made to office-comment list per the instructions here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=office Of course, if you have any constructive and relevant comments on the ODF 1.2 public review draft, rather than obscure references to asbestos, sardines and world trade, they would be even more welcome. And seriously, consider sending us a real, concrete proposal and we'll give it serious consideration. Nothing would make me happier than to get a genuine relevant comment from you. > See also Dave Pawson, Interoperability, Validation and Testability, > NodeSets (6 June 2009), > : > The last I checked, which was 30 seconds ago, Dave Pawson was a member of the OASIS ODF TC and was capable of making proposals directly, if he cared to do so. Regards, -Rob From jomar.silva at br.odfalliance.org Fri Jul 30 20:26:08 2010 From: jomar.silva at br.odfalliance.org (Jomar Silva) Date: Fri Jul 30 20:35:34 2010 Subject: Res: Re: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142144070-1280535971-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-41628502-@bda931.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Marbux, Strange, but the TC you're talking about isn't the same that am I in. BTW, its funny to always read your complains everywhere... Just complains... Best, Jomar PS.: I'm also SC34 delegate and WG6 member. Let me know if you need something there too (but please, don't send me complains, ok ?) -----Original Message----- From: marbux Sender: odf-discuss-bounces@opendocumentfellowship.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:59:24 To: ODF Discussion List Reply-To: ODF Discussion List Subject: Re: [odf-discuss] Specification On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Damon Anderson wrote: > While I would love to join OASIS, I am not currently solvent enough to do > so. This leaves the question of how can us common plebeians can effect > change in the specification. For example, I frequently enter user bugs that > are rejected by developers because they are contrary to the specification. > Which is right and good, the devs must follow the spec. This is further > complicated by the standard, and well known conflict between what users > consider critical, and what devs consider critical. To put it simply, > entering bugs does not seem to be getting users the changes they feel are > essential to USABILITY, which, after all, is the only real way to compete > with MS et al. > IMHO OOo development has now long suffered from featuritis, and common user > issues (no matter how big the flame wars) continue to go un-fixed. Again, > understandable. From a dev view, building a new feature or function, is much > easier, and more glamorous, than sorting through old code, or challenging > current spec definitions. > So back to my question. How can I (the pleb) ?request a change to the > specification. Where is my channel? (That is short of tracking down Mr. > Weir's email address and harassing an already busy fellow.) In my experience, even joining the ODF TC does little good in terms of getting specification defects dealt with. The big vendor-dominated TC is amazingly indifferent to interoperability bugs in the specification. What does seem to work is to file the bug reports with the ODF TC and notify a national standardization body delegate to ISO/IEC JTC 1's SC 34 who is willing to carry the ball to get the bug filed as a maintenance request from their national standardization body. The ODF TC ignores those only at risk of losing official responsibility for maintaining ODF. Murata Makoto of Japan and Alex Brown of the UK are two such NB delegates. -- Universal Interoperability Council _______________________________________________ odf-discuss mailing list odf-discuss@opendocumentfellowship.com http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss From marbux at gmail.com Fri Jul 30 23:18:41 2010 From: marbux at gmail.com (marbux) Date: Fri Jul 30 23:19:07 2010 Subject: [odf-discuss] Specification In-Reply-To: <142144070-1280535971-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-41628502-@bda931.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <142144070-1280535971-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-41628502-@bda931.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Jomar Silva wrote: > Strange, but the TC you're talking about isn't the same that am I in. Could be that we're not talking about the same TC. I'm talking about the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC, which has had in its charter's scope since 2002 "establishing a set of 'core' elements and attributes to be supported by all implementations" but hasn't managed to get that task on its agenda in some eight years. . Which TC are you talking about? -- Universal Interoperability Council From jomar.silva at br.odfalliance.org Fri Jul 30 23:49:54 2010 From: jomar.silva at br.odfalliance.org (Jomar Silva) Date: Fri Jul 30 23:49:59 2010 Subject: Res: Re: Re: [odf-discuss] Specification Message-ID: <265712791-1280548195-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1858682185-@bda931.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> > Which TC are you talking about? OK... I would argue this or that, but considering the amount of useless noise you use to made on everything regarding ODF that appears on the Internet, I'll just give you a normative advice: - You SHALL change your nickname to Marsux ! Anyway, I really understand and respect your decision: Spend your life moaning is easier than spend it working for change... Best, Jomar PS.: The ideas expressed here are my personal opinions... And YES, I've spent a lot of time reading your complains in the past to 'build' my opinions, OK ?