Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Is an organisation ??? It just looks like a links site by an individual OpenDocument fan. Site seems relevant for the article as it is a nicely setup links info site but preferbly this should not be listed as an organisation.hAl 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OpenDocument mime types?

What are OD's mime types? Could they be added to the article somewhere? --Mecanismo | Talk 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They would belong in this article: OpenDocument technical specification hAl 11:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing OpenDocument Master

I've seen OpenDocument Master or ODM file types on the web and in the Open dialog of OOo; however I have no clue what it is good for, nor does it appear here. If anyone knows, add it in!+mwtoews 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

R&D History

It would be intersting to see more about how these formats were researched and developed. What kinds of studies were done? Was their design just guided by the Microsoft formats, or was there an effort to develope office productivity tools and formats from scratch without considering the structure of commercial software? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonPMitchell (talkcontribs) 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Microsoft claimed to be seeking contract editors for this article

A writer posted to the O'Reilly Network (O'Reilly as in Tim, not Fox News) that he was offered pay from Microsoft in return for editing this article: "I [received an] email a couple of days ago from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML." --Zippy 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I confess I could use the money, but I doubt they would like anything I would write. Arker 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Same discussion on Talk:Ecma_Office_Open_XML#Microsoft_askes_XML_expert_Rick_Reliffe_for_adding_view_on_OOXML_wikipedia_articles.--Hhielscher 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More info here: PCWORD: "Should Microsoft Pay for Wikipedia Edits?" Paul August 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism of OpenDocument format" section was just removed from the article with the comment "Deleted Vadalism by microsoft and Rick Jelliffe, who was paid to discredit the OpenDocument page in Wikipedia". The text is below, to which I contributed (and I'll say again I am not a paid or unpaid representative of Microsoft, just someone who thinks valid criticism should be encouraged). If someone could indicate how it could be improved - or indeed if it should be in the article, I'd be grateful. I'm deliberately not reverting, as I don't want to start a revert war. WLDtalk|edits 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just reinstated that section; recommend semi-protection for this page in light of the press attention. This is going to be a headache for Wikipedia - Jimbo has come out saying that they can't stop the paid bloke, God knows how how many other editors are paid to edit with a particular point-of-view; Microsoft is essentially pushing POV, which is more-or-less vandalism; and the edit rate on this page is going to skyrocket as anti-MS-fanbois remove anything they may see as 'Edits paid for by MS' - and other fanbois reinstate them, and more.
A tip for those who believe the editing on OpenDocument is biased: Tag it first with a POV tag using {{POV}}, then come to the talk page to discuss what you think is POV. As with all Internet-based discussions, keep calm, be rational, and no flaming! Sentinel75 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I found it very amusing to see that when critisism is added on ODF tthat then Microsoft is to blame and that the raised issues must be false. However if IBM raises the same issues then is gets slahsdotted and half the wikipedia community runs to add it to the OOXML article. It is hardly surprising that Microsoft is looking for a more indepent voice on the formats as the current state of anti-microsoft sentiment on this wiki is truly astounding. I have put in some of this critisism section (feel free to remove my edit) just to see the reaction. Allthough the critisism in itself is probably valid it is simular to the critisism that was placed on the OOXML format. OOXML is not perfect and mayby IBM and Groklaw would love to see it not get ISO approval. But let's be realistic. ODF passed ISO approval with a lot of flaws as wel and I did not hear the whole wiki protest against that either. This campaign started by IBM and moved on by Growlaw (I should remind to remove myself from their newsletter cause I almost gagged when I recieved their plea to influence ISO voting) is truly beyond normal reason and I find it a very distastefull affair in which the OSS community shows itself in it's worst way. I wish all the effort put in against Microsoft would in stead be put to good use and improving OpenDocument. That would be the spirit of a cmmunity I would like to belong to !!! hAl 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug Mahugh (the guy who sent Rick the email) explains his reasoning and publishes the actual email text here: Microsoft PR Paying to "Correct" Wikipedia: Comment #17724650 SeLfkiLL 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Target of Microsoft-sponsored Edits... not really a part of OpenDocument

I removed this section: Target of Microsoft-sponsored Edits On 24 January 2007, it was revealed by FoxNews and other sources that Microsoft Corporation had attempted to hire an Australian consultant to make "corrections" to this article and others, all involving open source software. Microsoft spokesperson Catherine Brooker expressed the belief that these articles had been "heavily written" by supporters of the open-source standard, which is a rival to Microsoft products.

The selection of a consultant in another country is seen as an attempt to hide the connection to the Redmond, Washington software company. Brooker said that there was hope that using an "independent" contributor would prevent changes from simply being overruled by other Wikipedia editors.

Yeah. First of all, this is a self-reference. Second of all, it has absolutely nothing to do with OpenDocument.

Hi. I am the guy! FoxNews did not "reveal", I wrote about it in my blog at the OReilly site. You do not attempt to hide a connection by writing a entry on a syndicated blog called "An interesting offer: get paid to edit Wikipedia." The offer was not to promote MS or its brands, just clean up a public standard they are associated with and use (and related standards). I have expertise as a member of the working group at ISO that has to scrutinize and maintain office and documents standards, including ODF, SGML and proposed draft OOXML. I am neither anti-ODF nor anti-OOXML: it do not see them as competitors but just technologies on the ISO sausage line with an unusual amount of noise and spin associated with them. People from both camps have attested to my integrity and neutrality. Please note, that I am not going to edit articles or material about MS, its brands or products, so I do not see that there is the kind of actual conflict of interest written about in the guidelines; there is, of course, the appearance of a conflict of interest so I certainly expect that changes I suggest would be scrutinized critically. Standards such as OOXML, ODF, SGML, XML (I was in the larger group that developed that at W3C), XML Schemas (I was on the W3C working group that developed that) and schema languages like ISO Schematron (I invented it and am the editor of the ISO standard) are all areas of interest to me, where I think I can contribute.Rick Jelliffe 09:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a comment on Ecma Office Open XML...


If you are coming here to write about how some guy was apparently offered money to fix problems with this and other articles, note that /this does not qualify as criticism of the Office Open XML Format/.

Yes, it's vaguely interesting, but it really has no relevance to the topic at hand. Wikipedia also generally discourages articles that talk about self-referential controversies. A more appropriate place to write such criticism might be the "Criticism of Microsoft" article, but even then, the text needs to be critical in nature, not just a statement that some guy was offered money to edit a Wikipedia article.

So, please refrain from making edits like this. bCube(talk,contribs); 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It DOES have to to with THIS ARTICLE. Readers should be made aware that it may not be accurate, complete or free from commercial influences. Or, in other words, that the "witness" (in this case,the article itself) may be "tainted."
It's more than "vaguely" interesting -- it goes right to the heart of the credibility issue.
The rumor mill is already working. Having a simple notice is worthwhile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
BCube, I notice that your only "contributions" to the OpenDocument page have been in regard to the MS attempt to pay someone to help them here in Wikipedia.
A look through your user history shows that nearly all of your edits since you arrived in Wikipedia have been on issues involving MS, and in each of those cases your edit was done to counter criticism of MS or improve MS' image.
Thus, your removal of references to the shill attempt look just like the work of another shill. You make reference to Wikipedia "generally" discouraging articles that talk about "self-referential controversies," while seeming not to notice that Wikipedia rules PROHIBIT the activity being referred to.
Please stop removing things put in by other people just because you want to promote Microsoft. Continuing to do so will result in a complaint being filed. Critic-at-Arms 24 January 2007
Assume Good Faith, Critic-at-Arms. Oh, and the fact that my only contribution to the OpenDocument page was in regard to the Microsoft thing--I heard about it on Digg. I saw that there wasn't anything about the edit on the Open XML article.
"A look through your user history shows that nearly all of your edits since you arrived in Wikipedia have been on issues involving MS, and in each of those cases your edit was done to counter criticism of MS or improve MS' image. "
I don't ever remember editing MS articles the majority of the time. Even if I did, the reason why would be to get rid of ambiguous information and POV. And to I cited the Ecma Open Office XML comment. I DID NOT WRITE THAT COMMENT.
There is a middle ground between a Microsoft "shill" and an anti-Microsoft person. Next time, please assume good faith. Thank you! bCube(talk,contribs); 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, BCube, the "assume good faith" rule is countered by the record of your activities here in Wikipedia -- as I noted. I could assume good faith on your part, if you weren't killing any reference to Microsoft's attempt to undermine good faith. Yes, there is a middle ground, but you aren't there. You have admitted that you only came here because you heard about this on Digg -- that's not middle ground, that is issue politics. Critic-at-Arms 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Redmond, Washington again?

I have restored the section, after it was deleted by (talk · contribs). The reason is that this anonymous user with zero edit count is contributing from within 7 miles from the Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Washington. See User talk: -- Petri Krohn 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor reason for reverting clearly explained edits. Gazpacho 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I admit that I do not know a lot of the rules surrounding Wikipedia, but I do not see an issue with paying a person to write unbiased articles here. There are more then enough people who are biased against Microsoft and write here. Adding a note saying that MS has paid someone to edit this page is ridiculous. --Doc0tis 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no problem in paying someone to make unbiased contributions to Wikipedia. The problem is, I can't really see Microsoft (or any other private corporation) paying someone to make unbiased contributions. Do you? If we admit that MS would only pay for pro-MS edits (quite evident a premise), then we can safely conclude that any edit by someone paid by MS is biased. Just because he/she is paid.
And please, stop that crap about anti-MS zealots. Yes, all bias should be avoided, and anti-MS zealots do exist. However, comparing the pro-MS edits made by someone paid to say so, with anti-MS edits made by someone who actually believes it, because he/she has little external incentive for doing so, is unfair, to say the least. Both can be right or wrong, but the latter could be right for the right reasons. The former never. — Isilanes 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is simple -- Wikipedia isn't intended as an extension of a company's ad campaigns. For their Public Relations department to hire someone to edit articles is a violation of the NPOV rule.
Likewise, when users with no track record (or with a record of edits nearly exclusively in direct support of a company) appear only to "improve" a company's image, that is a violation of the NPOV rule. ALL THREE users who have removed references to the attempt to twist Wikipedia to fit Microsoft's ends fit the two categories. This is CLEARLY a matter of their point-of-view. Whether this is personal or a matter of employment is not important.
Wikipedia is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The creator has stated that what Microsoft attempted to do was a violation of the rules, and HE WROTE THE RULES, so we have to kind of accept the idea that he knows what he's talking about.
Besides, it's kind of raunchy to use open-source rules to attack open-source, then attempt to blame those who defend open-source.
The easy way to tell if it's wrong is to substitute other issues. If you would condemn the political party which you personally oppose for doing it to the article about the party that you support, then you have your answer. 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If a NPOV situation arises (and I'm not sure it will) then on wikipedia we discuss that on this pages and not in the articles themselfs. Discussion about editting the article do not belong in the article. hAl 07:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So long as what is added conforms with Wikipedia policies and preferably meets Wikipedia guidelines as well, then there shouldn't be an issue. Key ones are the Neutral Point of View (policy), reliable citations (guideline) and things like the Manual of Style (guideline). In addition, whatever is added should be relevant to the subject of the article. The article itself should be neutral, and if discussion/controversy merits it, then it would be a good idea to link to a separate article about the "Controversy concerning X", rather than cluttering up the "X article" itself. Its also worth reflecting and taking the long view - will what's being added be interesting or relevant in 10 or even 100years time? We are writing an encyclopædia here - it's not a blog or discussion site - see What Wikipedia is not (policy) - especially the sections Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. WLDtalk|edits 11:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"The issue is simple -- Wikipedia isn't intended as an extension of a company's ad campaigns." How is this part of a company's ad campaign? What happens if a Microsoft employee writes something on Wikipedia that is factually correct and adhere's to NPOV and all the other Wikipedia rules. Does that mean we should revert their changes? No!!! Payment does not mean biased. In this case payment actually means unbiased. Something that some people here don't seem to understand. --Doc0tis 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
When a company's PUBLIC RELATIONS department hires someone to write things about their products or those of a competitor, that is ADVERTISING. To pick someone in another country to do it is an attempt to hide what they did, so even Microsoft knows that it was wrong. Why don't you?
But what we say is not as important as what the guy who STARTED WIKIPEDIA says, and HE says that this was a VIOLATION. 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can source the page where he states that this was a violation I'd appreciate it. I have only seen this quote "We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach,". This states that he believes that this was not his favoured route to take, but does not state that it violates Wikipedia rules.

I strongly believe that there is more bias against Microsoft on this site than bias for Microsoft. This violates Wikipedias NPOV! In regards to your comments: Note they hired someone from outside the company, who is not a MS Fanboy, and that MS "had agreed that the company would not be allowed to review his writing before submission." Also your comment on it being outside the country is pretty dumb, this does not signify that they attempted to cover it up. If the company wanted this hidden, it would be fairly easy to keep it on the downlow. --Doc0tis 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Self reference

Before using this as a criticism, be aware it is only bad if the reference to Wikipedia does not follow the same rules as other references. I.E. NPOV, notable, verifiable and in a format consistent with other refs - no wikilinks to policy pages, for example, but http permalinks would be valid, if they met the other conditions. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12 26 January 2007 (GMT).


Link to Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats, in see other and keep it out of this article. Charles Esson 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph OpenDocument is the first standard for editable office documents that has been approved by an international standardization body. is inaccurate. ISO Office Document Archicture ISO 8613:1989 (ODA) predates it by about 17 years as a standard (The Wikipedia entry gives the publication date of 1999 for ODA, I think this may be when the last part was published). Better text would be OpenDocument is the first XML-based standard... or OpenDocument is the first XML-in-ZIP standard... (SGML people regarded ODA as their main competitor at ISO, with the ODA people saying all you needed to do was provide all the features found in WP and simple metadata in an efficient binary format, and the SGML people saying what was needed was rigorous markup, extensibility, text-based formats, and against universal schemas.) Rick Jelliffe 05:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So be bold and fix it! Sdedeo (tips) 05:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Because of appearance of conflict of interest I will put up issues first on the talk page then make the changes a couple of days later if there are no objections.Rick Jelliffe 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rick -- I inputted the changes myself -- thanks for pointing them out! For future reference you can, of course, just edit the text yourself -- no priviledged user status necessary. Sdedeo (tips) 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I understand your reticence -- you're "that dude." My guess is that now thing have calmed down you can just merge into the usual wikiperson stream -- and if it counts, I as a long-term user (since 2005) see no problem with it. "Interested" users contribute all the time, and there is even a "bounties" project where people can offer monetary rewards for improving an article. Further, I don't think it's a problem if you want to create a new username that preserves your anonymity (may I suggest FrogHackerD00m?) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, imagine all the fuss if I did that! The idea is to increase focus, not provide more opportunities for accusation, spin and FUD. Rick Jelliffe 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 1. "...under the name ISO/IEC 26300:2006" is innacurate if you are a pedant. Should be "under the number ISO/IEC 26300:2006". In the footnote [1], the full reference name should be used: "ISO/IEC 26300:2006 Information technology -- Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0" ISO has a hierarchical naming structure for referencing, so the "Information technology --" is part of the name.Rick Jelliffe 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedant is my middle name (However 'Incorrect' is my first), but surely the string "ISO/IEC 26300:2006" is not a number (unless you are using strange definition of number, and surreal number is taken) - perhaps a better term would be "under the designation "ISO/IEC 26300:2006"? WLDtalk|edits 11:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on Accessibility: the paragraph "OpenDocument is fully specified in a public document without any implementation barriers, allowing anyone to create the software necessary for those with disabilities." seems a non sequitur and fluff. "Anyone" can, from a public spec, create software with bad accessibility as well. Anyone can create software with good accessibility with their own non-standard, private file formats. The navigation and media aspects of accessibility relate to whether an accessibility API has been used: application issues not file format. The aspects of accessibility that relate to format include issues such as whether text alternatives to images have been used, and this is the kind of information about ODF that would be relevant for this article. (In general, XML formats are usually regarded as providing a good basis for accessibility, when declarative rather than procedural has been used; contrast HTML with PostScript for example.)Rick Jelliffe 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The section Criticism: Native Java Applets is, from the standards POV, inaccurate. The ISO standard defines "conformance" to the spec in grammatical terms (accepting elements in certain namespaces according to a schema) and not in semantic terms, see s1.6. Indeed, a major strength of markup languages is that they allow repurposing and cherry-picking. So the idea that a less than "full implementation" of the semantics of the elements is somehow deficient is marketing speak, not something related to the standard. Probably the same point applies to all SGML/XML based standards. For example, a spreadsheet application should accept (but not necessarily roundtrip?) any ODF file, but it would only implement the elements relevant to spreadsheet: "full implementation" is a non-goal. I'd add Full implementation is not required for conformance to the ISO standard. Rick Jelliffe 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rick -- thanks for your suggestions, but I think someone else can be your secretary from here on out! Sdedeo (tips) 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rob Weir's suggestions

As I did last week with the OOXML article, I've done a review of the ODF article for your consideration and posted it on my [blog]. I am a member of the OASIS ODF TC, JTC1/SC34, work on various ODF topics at IBM and have spoken at several conferences on ODF topics. So I have expertize in the subject matter. But out of abundance of caution, and respecting Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, I am refraining from editing the article directly.


RCWeir 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself, but good faith edits are always appreciated. It's far more likely your work will improve the article if you edit it yourself and engage people in direct debate on the talk page if there are disagreements. Sdedeo (tips) 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We judge COI, not you. And being an expert is never a COI. Make an edit. Talk to people on the talk page. Cite reliable published sources. Accept that other's opinions count as much as yours. Play well with others and you will find wikipedia fun and inviting. Don't expect us to waste our time editing for you - if the page's main authors agree with what you say about the page then edit the page to reflect that. If you are reverted, then take it to the take page. If you are accused of bias or conflict of interest THEN taking it off wikipedia as you did is the right thing to do. Premature self-eviction I think. WAS 4.250 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ODF compared to DrawingML

I have insufficient knowledge to determine if ODF as described in the ISO standard is sufficiently rich to describe drawings (akin to those produced by Visio). Can anyone comment? WLDtalk|edits 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. I actually think I have seem references on ODF where is says a drawing method is compared to SVG (without mentioning which SVG exact version) so it should be simular to the SVG capabilities I guess. hAl 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think there are two questions here. As far as I can tell, ODF 1.0 (the ISO standard) has some limitations and possibly may not allow the inclusion of arbitrary (maybe binary) elements; whereas ODF 1.2 (which is not an ISO standard) does/will do. To that extent, any format is ODF compatible, as a binary element can be included that can be interpreted by a specially written application - that is, ODF is just acting as a container or bucket. Now that is not the intention that many people want - they want the standard elements themselves to be sufficient to describe a document. To that end, I'm not sure that ODF 1.0 is sufficient to describe documents produced from Microsoft Visio. Different versions of Visio use different methods to describe arbitrary lines: the most recent uses Nonuniform rational B-splines (NURBS); older versions use elliptical arcs. Some applications use a subset of NURBS, usually called Bézier curves or splines. The end result of this is that ODF may not provide for 'perfect fidelity' when a convertor converts from some other document format into ODF version <whatever> and return. As I say, I don't know enough to tell for sure, but I do know that using different methods to attempt to describe the same thing can cause nasty problems. I hope an expert will be along in due course! WLDtalk|edits 11:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)