Submitted by A group formed five years ago to promote the OpenDocument Format has abandoned ODF and will favor one developed by the World Wide Web Consortium known as the ‘Compound Document Format’, or CDF. The OpenDocument Foundation’s format failed to meet market requirements, the group said.
Before all the discussions start, it’s worth noting that this group consists of nothing more than 3 people in a garage somewhere. The real entity behind the ODF format is called the Open Document Alliance. Ergo, that the Open Document Foundation stops promoting the OD Format is totally irrelevant!
LOL, I don’t know how this made the OSN frontpage 🙂
You’ll be amazed at the nonsense and irrelevant news that make it through, if it is to say something bad about Linux, is even easier for it to reach the front page. But, 99% of the times it happens, when the news is linke from that particular OSN staff member, (TH).
It seems everybody is brushing these three guys and this organization off as irrelevant. I never heard of them before, but I’m not ready to reject them based on the name.
Yes the name is misleading. It is good to know what an organization is and is not when reading what they say, so it’s good that you educated us.
But on their own website they say they switched because CDF meets their criteria but ODF won’t. Look at what they say their criteria is:
For the past five years we have been hell bent on a quest for a universal file format. We define this elusive quest as an open, un encumbered, universally interoperable structured format compliant with W3C Internet Technologies, completely application, platform and vendor independent, with a trusted governance model that is open Internet – open source community friendly and internationally recognized.
If that’s true–and I’ve heard no one say it isn’t–that’s admirable, noteworthy and good.
I haven’t said that their organization is irrelevant, or in any way bad, just that their decision to stop supporting ODF is not as relevant as it sounds in the summary. The problem here (and at slashdot, digg etc) is the editors, that present the story as “ODF abandoned, CDF could become the new standard”, something that at least made me put my coffee in the wrong throat!
Then, of course if the OD Foundation’s real goal is to cause exactly this kind of ruckus, (insert tin foil theories) then their organization deserves critic. But this is mere speculation, and probably unlikely.
“For the past five years we have been hell bent on a quest for a universal file format.”
What they have spent most of the last few years doing:
Trying to cram extensions into ODF without much thought about why they’re needed, as such they were rejected.
Promoting vapourware (da vinci plugin) for the last few years.
Promoting themselves to all and sundry.
Starting the recent anti-ODF FUD.
If you want to know more about the problems with the foundation, find Bruce D’Arcus online, he was initially a member, but left for good reasons.
If your 3-man organization was started 5 years ago and to this date almost no-one cares about you or know who you are it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s not really important what format you lend support to.
Talk is cheap.
Look at what they say their criteria is:
“For the past five years we have been hell bent on a quest for a universal file format. We define this elusive quest as an open, un encumbered, universally interoperable structured format compliant with W3C Internet Technologies, completely application, platform and vendor independent, with a trusted governance model that is open Internet – open source community friendly and internationally recognized.”
If that’s true–and I’ve heard no one say it isn’t–that’s admirable, noteworthy and good.
Maybe, but it’s a completely different goal from that of a standard, which is what ODF attempts to be.
“Universally interoperable” means you seek compatibility with all sorts of formats, which greatly increases needless complexity. By contrast, ODF seeks to be universally supported by given open source and proprietary developers a single, open, rational target to shoot for. Seems like a better goal to me.
Here’s one for you:
HTML.
Although, IE v?.? tends to do weird things with it, even if one follows STANDARDS.
“””
it’s worth noting that this group consists of nothing more than 3 people in a garage somewhere.
“””
IIRC, 3 people who got kicked out of OASIS and do *not* have a garage. Classic case of sour grapes, I suspect.
The whole “foundation” consists of three men, who actually have nothing to do with either the development or the promotion of OpenOffice. But they curiously have that name, which makes them look more important than they in fact are. They are not the “Open Document Alliance”, which is the real mother organisation backing up and promoting odf, and which you may confuse it with.
The Open Document Foundation (and their opinion about ODF)is as important as if you took two friends and founded a “OOXML Foundation” and then started spewing “facts” about how bad OOXML is to make it look as if “ooxml supporters are turning their backs to ooxml”. Thats basically what those three guys there are doing. Astroturfing. Their name is _extremely_ misleading and this should be mentioned in the article.
Dont fall for this astroturf. This was on slashdot yesterday, and was deleted after a few hours after a editor realised what he linked to the frontpage.
Sam Hiser is simply a con artist trying to attach himself to anything he thinks will make him money.
First he tried to proclaim himself the PR front for OpenOffice.org. Then when get got the boot, she started these other cons like this “foundation.”
Sam Hiser is simply a con artist trying to attach himself to anything he thinks will make him money.
First he tried to proclaim himself the PR front for OpenOffice.org. Then when get got the boot, she started these other cons like this “foundation.”
She or he? The legibility of your statements needs to be more clear. It’s clear that they are not important to ODF but your retort to clarify the matter needs an editor.
Frankly, it’s as much news as the many “I used to love MS until Vista” articles I’ve read.
So when one pundit who liked MS switches allegiances it’s news and it’s silly when a couple of open-source pundits switch allegiances? Seems like a bit of a double standard. Frankly, I don’t think either is newsworthy, but people love stories about shifting allegiances – even outside of computers. The way that former pro-lifers and former pro-choicers are paraded around is ridiculous. So, someone has changed a decision. Wow. Incredible. I thought nothing in the world ever changed!
Frankly, I’m not sure what your point is.
Of course this story is newsworthy in its own right. It is worth mentioning the fact that the OpenDocument Foundation has little actual influence on the OpenDocument Format though. There is definitely room for confusion.
With respect to the decision made by the Foundation, I’m curious to know what products actually support CDF.
Nothing currently supports CDF since CDF isn’t a file format. It is a framework for combining different formats in a single document. Some browsers already support XHTML files containing SVG and MathML; these are compound documents by inclusion. Normal web pages could be considered compound documents by reference with CSS and SVG being referenced by XHTML. The combination of XHTML, CSS, and XForms are the WICD profile.
I suppose you could declare ODF or OOXML to be in CDF since they have multiple XML languages linked and included together to form a single document.
rubish. If the previously MS loving pundit who turned his back ran an organization with a name like ‘Microsoft professional services’ or something similarly designed to create the impression of close allegiance between the group and parent entity suddenly started announcing things like ‘MS tools not suitable from workplace use’ or ‘Limits in MS tools force recommendation of Apple tools because they work best with emerging linux standards’ then this would represent a significant difference to an article by some PC Mag columnist complaining that vista sucks up all their RAM
So, who holds the trademark for “OpenDocument”? Sounds like lawsuit time.
Isn’t trademark for “OpenDocument” an oxymoron?
Wouldn’t it only be an oxymoron if it were OpenTrademark?
“Open” (not “document”) seems to conflict with “trademark”.
Edited 2007-10-31 21:17
No. Trademark protects the name, not the actual specification or the implentation. It’s a way to prevent someone from dragging your good name in the mud, so to speak. It has little to do with “Open” and in fact quite a few OSS projects (Nagios, Linux and SpamAssassin for example) are trademarked.
Not to mention Firefox, RedHat, and the term “Open Source” itself
No more than Linux being trademarked.
I heard OASIS were still considering their options…
RIP OpenDocument Foundation… Long live ODF!
“We at the OpenDocument Foundation have been displeased with the direction of ODF development this year,” wrote Sam Hiser
Errr. Hello?
..when did 3 guys in a garage ever come up with anything useful 🙂
Never. It’s always been two guys and a garage.
Including the third person was their first mistake, and virtually guaranteed their slip into oblivion and irrelevance.
Join the ODF Alliance:
The Alliance is a group of organizations committed to promoting the use of open standards and OpenDocument Format. Membership in the Alliance is open to all organizations that are committed to the Alliance’s mission. If your organization would like to join the Alliance and you are authorized to speak on behalf of your organization,
http://www.odfalliance.org/join.php
We did.
hylas