Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Math

This criticism is listed in the article:

  • Some mathematicians do not think that the choice of the MathML W3C standard for use in OpenDocument is a good choice[citation needed]. MathML[1] is a W3C recommendation for the "inclusion of mathematical expressions in Web pages" and "machine to machine communication" that has been around since about 1999. However, most mathematicians continue to use the much older TeX format as their main method for typesetting complex mathematical formulae. TeX is not an ISO standard, but is fully documented and is the de facto standard for typesetting mathematical expressions. OpenDocument is also criticized for not using the ISO 12083:1994 standard for mathematical formulae, which is not used within MathML either. MathML has a few issues[citation needed] with representing mathematical formulae correctly compared to other methods like TeX.

I don't understand this. MathML and TeX serve different purposes as far as I understand (I'm a long-time LaTeX user, and fairly green on ODF or MathML). TeX is a convenient input format and an excellent typesetting algorithm, but it can be a bit ambiguous if you'd ever want to use a computer to automatically evaluate an expression. For example, does the letter i represent sqrt(-1) or just any integer number? The MathML standard allows a human-writable "annotation" element, e.g. this is how OpenOffice stores a simple equation in an ODF document:

<math>
  <math:semantics> 
     ... lots of MathML gibberish ...
     <math:annotation  math:encoding="StarMath 5.0">( a + b ) over (c^2 + d)</math:annotation>
  </math:semantics>
</math>

Indeed, the MathML spec gives an example[1] with

<math:annotation math:encoding="TeX">...</math>

So the real question is whether ODF allows TeX encoding rather than StarMath-5.0 encoding. If the answer is yes, then this criticism should be deleted (especially since it is unreferenced). If the answer is no, then this criticism should be rewritten. According to the odf spec[2], ODF simply incorporates MathML 2.0 without further restrictions, so I think the answer is yes. Han-Kwang (t) 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say kind of the same. It's pretty clear to me that MathML and TeX serve pretty different purposes. TeX was created to be typed directly, and only to typeset math. There is no way to know if some text was typeset in roman because it's an operator, or because it's text. MathML allows different elements for this different purposes: <mo> and <mtext>. Also, in the MathML faq, it's pretty clear that MathML and TeX serve different purposes (see syntax and technical issues). 80.32.129.34 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I am a mathematician. MATHML was supposed to provide a standard for mathematics markup on the web. It is a dismal failure! Instead of listening to mathematicians and producing something sensible and latexlike that would do the job, they tried to reinvent the wheel and basically botched it. Mathematics markup on the web is just as problematic today as it was when MATHML was introduced, as evidenced by the fact the fact that wikipedia has had to invent its own mathematics markup language to do the job that MATHML was supposed to do. Apologists for MATHML now like to claim that it was never intended to do this job. They lie! They also dwell on ambiguities in mathematical typography - is dx a differential or d times x - as if this was an important issue! In fact it is an irrelevancy. There are NO tools in existence capable of using the semantic distinctions they claim are so vitally important that they override any considerations of usability. I cannot overstate my hatred for this putrid standard which has completely ruined any chance of our having decent mathematical markup natively implemented on the web for at least a generation. I am very unhappy at the incorporation of MATHML into ODF. It has resulted in the ridiculous situation that the ISO standard for typesetting mathematics into documents is something that almost no mathematician would ever use. The only saving grace is that programs like openoffice use their own (latexlike) mathematical scripting language for input which is then converted to MATHML for storage. However noone has ever managed to adequately explain to me why we don't just use the reasonably sensible scripting language used to input the mathematics instead!Hawthorn (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, for all that I strongly dislike MATHML (see above to guage the depths of my dislike), I do find it odd that criticism of MATHML should appear here and not on the MATHML page. The MATHML page is to my eye unrelentingly positive to the point of seeming unbalanced, and completely lacks a criticism section of its own. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move criticism of MATHML to the actual MATHML page where it might provide some much needed balance? Hawthorn (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A reference to TeX not providing semantic markup is in this paper, which also suggests a solution, STeX, or Semantic Tex. This paper also contains a good description of the strengths and weaknesses of both MATHML and Tex. This would provide a citation for the statement "TeX is useful only for typesetting", although a more nuanced approach would be to remove that sentence altogether, and just putting this citation adjacent to the previous statement. Tex has other values, such as the entire infrastructure which has been built around Tex/Latex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.189.57 (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting the veracity of the TeX MathML issues, since the fine reference was already there. The issue, as Hawthorn said, is that no one has a provided a reference stating it as a criticism of OpenDocument.
So yes, Hawthorn, I think moving that criticism to the MathML page might be appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

XML created and developed by Open Office?

The second paragraph of the article makes a claim that OpenOffice.org created and implemented the XML file format, yet I have found no evidence to support this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.239.101 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be because XML is not a file format, but a language and no -- Openoffice.org did not create the ODF format (in it's current inception), but it was among the first to implement it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.20.61 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of OpenDocument article

hAl reports the following text that comes from a dense document. I believe it was taken out of context and needs more work. The reporting by hAl is evidently biased.

The president of the OpenDocument foundation stated that Opendocument does not address the three 'big problems' facing any transition of documents applications and processes in Microsoft formats to XML whereas OOXML, being created by Microsoft, is intended to do just that.[2].

Those problems are:

  • Compatibility with existing documents-file formats: including the volumes of MS binary documents.
  • Interoperability with existing applications: including the over 500 million MSOffice-bound workgroups.
  • Convergence of desktop, server, device, and web systems as fluid and highly interoperable routers of documents, data, and media. Also know as "Grand Convergence.

He blames it on the “two ODF groups”: one pro-OOXML and the other pro-ODF.

Simosx 18:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the re-addition of this piece by hAl, because I thought it was not less, but maybe even more biased than it'd been before.
Then it was re-added by a newly-registered user Jimb1234, who might be a sockpuppet: while the first edit is correct, this other one is suspicious (and the comment doesn't look like a new user's comment). I've reverted it, but I have to admit that the user has made it a little less biased. Only a little, though, so I believe it should still be discussed first.
--AVRS 11:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand. This is very newsworthy article with info coming from the Opendocument foundation and the text is a near copy from a relvant part of the article. How is a text copied from an article biased? Or is the Opendocument foundation an unreliable source? Jimb 1234 12:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not about reliability of the source. The info is notable, but it has to be worded in a way that does not change the meaning. Let's see what Simosx says. --AVRS 12:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As I mention above, the referenced text is dense, and not similar to other text available. Taking a segment out of it and pasting it here is a poor choice. Not only that, I also see bias in the addition. The original text says that OpenDocument was not designed to address those issues. The addition here changes the text to OpenDocument does not address. Simosx 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
@Jimb 1234: You are a new user to Wikipedia, you dive in a complex issue, you focus only on document formats, and you tend to make a familiar type of typos (relvant instead of relevant, nname instead of name). Have you been here before? Simosx 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you think it was taken out of context (weird because it is the essential part of what Gary Edwards is saying) and needs more work. But even then you should not revert the edit to remove it completely from the article. It is ridiculous that you are applying some kind of censorship on correctly referenced information because you think it might be taken out of context. If you think the citation is not up to scratch than change the citation appropriately but by removing it you effectively censor it from the article. You stated it needs work but I do not see you or anyone else applying changes to the article nor do I see any indication that the information is not correct or does not belong in the article. It is even referred here by AVRS as a notable comment so it does belong in the article. I will reinstate the comment and if you think I have not properly phrased the comment you (or anyone else) are welcome to change and improve it. hAl 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but neither Gary Edwards or the OpenDocument Foundation are related to the process. All they have is the popular ODF-name (the OpenDocument Alliance is those that does something), a vaporware-plugin (there was never a release or sourcecode, or?) and an own opinion. So, for me it sounds like a matter of relevance since if we would start to add opinions from everybody around rather then to concentrate on facts, then we would turn an encyclopedia into a bulletin board, or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.198.170 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What Edwards wrote appears now to amount to a rant. As I mention above, it is better to see other sources analyzing the text. If the text is notable, others will pick it up. Actually, there is one such article on the Edwards text which shows a different perspective. Considering that article it is easy to see that this edit is obsolete. Simosx 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What worries me is that any edits by hAl on Wikipedia appear to be heavily biased as if he has a personal vendetta. Simosx 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Talking about a personal vendetta. When I make an edit on the Office Open XML article on gnumeric adoption using a reference to the gnumeric website you change that to a link to an IBM blogger and when I make an edit here on a comment made by the opendocument foundation you refer to an article by the same IBM blogger. Why are you running after my edits using original sources and changing those edits to IBM sources that say the opposite form what I am saying. An IBM blogger is clearly a more biased source then the Gnumeric website or an published interview with the foundation president. You are talking of bias but it is like you are full of it. If the president of the Opendocument foundation and one of the two most participating members of the Opendocument committee in OASIS makes a critical comment on ODF that is quite relevant tot the article. However you are burying the information in a creepy kind of way as it seems several people are making edits in this and the OOXML article to highlight IBM views only and censor the opinion of someone important in development and standardization of ODF. Apparently IBM has taken over the open office scene in a big way and their reach is now on Wikipedia killing of other views ... hAl 20:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I already answered both your questions. For the first part (see MSOOXML Talk page), you put a ref to gnumeric while it was superfluous because the same line has a link to the Wikipedia Gnumeric page. For the second part, the answer is above. Simosx 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The second part is not an answer at all. If one of the most influential people on OpenDocument development and standardization criticizes OpenDocument you bury the info and revert edits on calling it a rant although this is not the first time Gary Edwrds was critical on the ODF development and the OASIS TC. You need a better explanation for why to remove then just calling it a rant as it is obvious that this is not his first time the Opendocument foundation that has been a part of the OASIS TC has uttered strong criticism. hAl 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
When speaking of "personal vendettas", recent posts from Rob Weir on his blog, taken up and commented by Groklaw [3] show that Microsoft seems to have some people try to distort the Wikipedia ODF article, and use this article in negotiations with governments who are in the process of deciding which format to use in future, ODF or MSOOXML. ANY PERSONS WITH A RELATIONSHIP TO MICROSOFT: PLEASE CUT IT OUT, DO NOT SPREAD YOUR FUD ON WIKIPEDIA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.211.152 (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
They will only stop when MS is forced to (read: sued).

These so called problems are stupid and misplaced. The problems mentioned are more related to the programs used and have nothing of relevance about formats themselves. Saying that OOXML adresses those problems is a lie.

The first is way over reasonable stupidity because OOXML IS another format. There is NOT compatibility with the older binary ones. Did you know that OpenOffice.org is better at opening and saving old .doc (and other) files that MS Office can't even open! The second problem is pure crap: those MSBound workgroups can easily install the Sun ODF plugin for MS Office. If they use MS Office 2007 install SP2 if they haven't done that already! The third problem is only a matter of programs running on all those platforms, if there is being used ODF, OOXML, binary, AVI, or any other data. It's data! It doesn't matter what format it is in for the network. It becomes relevant for the applications that work with it. This transports and poses the problem to the application problem there for making your third problem totally irrelevant!

Removal of Fact tags

With this edit [4] I placed 2 {{fact}} tags. One has been removed without a reference. Without a reference the line "however unlike the OSP [citation needed]license from Microsoft that also covers partial and imperfect implementations" is believed to be original research WP:OR. A reference comparing the two licenses is required. The simple link to the license at the end of the section is not good enough. If a reference comparing the OSP and IBM's license cant be found the claim will need to be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I already told you that the citation is in the OSP article which is properly wikified in this article. You can find it there and read it. There is not need to overrefence this article to satisfy your edit warring efforts against me. I see you have now been following my edits of mine in several articles either reverting them or needlessly asking for citations. I find your behaviour becoming more offensive towards me every day since you have been outed as the sockpuppeteer on my talk page. Stop this behaviour of following my contribution page to edit wafr against me. hAl (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the article needed a reference. By placing a {{fact}} tag, I am challenging the claim. Any editor can request a reference if they see a need for it. You needed to place a reference that compared the OSP to the IBM licensing. Without it , it reads as original research. Since you have removed the fact tag again, I have removed the claim. Please do not replace the statement without a reference. I was being nice and placed the {{fact}} tag in the first place to give other editors a chance to place a reference. You can not place information together that is not referenced together, you can not analyze 2 licenses and place the differences in a claim without a reference. That is original research WP:OR .
Secondly, Every single article on Wikipedia is open to be edited by any editor. You do not own articles, you do not own Wikipedia, you can not dictate to other editors which articles they can and can not edit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I have say? I noticed that HAl (talk · contribs) had placed a note in the edit summary of his edits indicating where he had gotten a reference from, however, references belong in the article, not the edit summary. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The information HAl has given in the edit summary is that the information about the OSP is in the OSP article. That doesn't help. What we need is a 3rd party reference that does the analyzing of whats in the OSP, whats in the IBM license, and compares them. Otherwise it is original research WP:OR. If he has such a reference, he should have added it when he removed the {{fact}} tag. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hal if the claim is repeated in another article then consider if it needs to be repeated here? If it does need to be repeated here then I think the citation should be repeated too.filceolaire (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Why is IBM's contribution of spreadsheet documentation a "key contribution"? As the reference says, OASIS are using the OpenFormula draft as the basis for the standard: David Wheeler just puts it that the Lotus 1-2-3 files will accelerate this.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "unlike the OSP license from Microsoft that also covers partial and imperfect implementation" is difficult to read: Indeed, I first read it as claiming that OSP did not allow partial implementations. However, the reverse is just as misleading: the fact is that the ODF conformance requirements are very general. I think the comment makes something small appear bigger than it is, so I have altered it.(talk) 08:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Suppose y'all already know...

...but the article needs to be updated to reflect Office2K7 SP2's increased support for ODF. I almost did it myself, but since I know nothing about ODF, figured better to drop a line here for the folks who tend the article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some note about serious interoperability observations that doesn't exist with other implementaions should be mentioned, as can be seen in following comparisons:
Note that Weir's tests of interoperability used an unreleased beta version of Symphony, instead of the current release version. If you use the current release version of Symphony, it has the same interoperability problems with OpenOffice 3 that MS Office does when it comes to spreadsheets. Here is acknowledgment of this problem from Lotus.

Noteworthy also that both Gnumeric (Gnome Office) en KSpread (KOffice) can actually read Excel produced ODF spreadsheet files with the ISO/IEC 29500 based spreadsheet language whereas OOo and OOo derivatives like IBM Symphony can't. hAl (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird citation

Weird citation request by user:Scientus

This is from a previous version fo the article:

OpenFormula is expected to be included in ODF 1.2.[citation needed]

Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 re-uses the formula format specified in ISO/IEC 29500

A claim of suspected Micrsoft advertisement relating to Openformule being included in ODF 1.2 ? hAl (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Interoperability Guidelines in MS Office SP2

Someone added a 3rd party blog post on a workshop a a supposed stament on behalf of Microsoft. I removed it because it was a blog post with not an exact accurate statement but an interpreted statement. For a direct MS comment on that interoperability guidelines read this MS blogpost: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2008/08/05/guiding-principles-for-office-s-odf-implementation.aspx The more exact context of these interoperability principles seems out of place in the above article. as it does not particularly apply to spreadsheet formulas. hAl (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce invalid ODF files

A citation on above was questioned beause of claimed lack of valid source related to verifiability. The cited tekst however described in detail how conformance of ODF on the IBM and Symphony files was tested and the tested ODF files created by Symphony and OOo which are publicly present on the blog of Rob Weir who is also used several times as a source on this article. so the test is repeatable and the test ed files are availalbe on an already used source in the article. The cited conformance tests are therefore repeatable en verifiable.

A blog is not a verifiable source when it is producing opinion or making unverifiable claims. However when the blog writer is identifiable and the information is factual (as in you can check it yourself) or is verifiable (you can verify claimed result by repeating the same thing that the blog has doen) the information can be of value for wikipedia.

Article text + citation:

IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce invalid ODF files. [3] hAl (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So why is the fact that certain implementations are buggy a valid comment to put here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.181.153 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The cited article only tested for conformance of the spreadsheet format. I think this sentence, if it is to be kept, should be re written to claim that 'IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce non conforming ODF spreadsheet files' ThePilgrim (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Im still curious as to why this statement needs to be here. In that case all Wiki articles about software products should list all the bugs that those product have. If the statement is to be kept, it should indicate which versions of said programs have the bug. Further, what does "invalid" mean in this context? Can the program read the ODF file just fine? If so, the statement needs to be weakened as it seems to be implying that the output file is in some way "bad" 99.246.181.153 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Brown is not a reliable source on OOXML or ODF [5]. He has been repeatedly accused of spreading FUD on these two standards[6][7]. Hervegirod (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am a reliable source on OOXML and ODF -- whether you choose to recognise that is reflects on your judgement, not mine. Yes, I am "repeatedly accused" of all kinds of things - whether you choose to believe hearsay allegation defines, in part, what kind of person you are. And yes, IBM's Symphony and OpenOffice.org produce spreadsheet files that do not conform to ODF - whether you acknowledge that defines your level of technical competence (all the code and data is there for you to use). However, I agree this information should NOT be included in this article as it comes from my personal blog, and we have waaay too much personal blog content in these articles as is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As Alex has suggested that this information should be removed and as it is his blog that provided the citation for the article I have added the edit protected template to the talk page ThePilgrim (talk)

Sorry I can't find this sentence. Please can be you more specific about what you want done, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find it on the page either, as the protection has been removed I withdraw the request ThePilgrim (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The information is false and should be removed, source: odf-lies-and-whispers

Groklawed and slashdotted!

Whee! The FUD fun and games of Rfvuhbtg (talk · contribs), HAI (talk · contribs), ThePilgrim (talk · contribs) et al have been noticed by Groklaw, which in turn has been thematized by Slashdot. What fun! -- Fullstop (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For me you have it the wrong way around. I read the article on Groklaw before coming here. This is me on Groklaw ThePilgrim (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And there is this: odf lies and whispers Clearly stating that IBM's Lotus Symphony does support ODF, ODF v1.1 to be precise. It's very interesting to read about what information are lies and what's just disinformation or confusion.

Citation request on reference to 'ZIP standard' critisism

A citation was requested. A source on this critisism can be found here Latest OOX-ODF FUD-Spat: States Prepare to Ban Zip and PDF Files hAl (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this citation is valid. The comments to the Blog entry have several criticisms of the information in the Blog entry ThePilgrim (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, stop embarrasing yourself hAl, zip is now open and standardized and pdf is too. That article is from 2007!

Distinguish template

Yeah, I admit, I got here via Slashdot, but I'm a WP editor first, and a Slashdotter 2nd.

Anyway, being new to this discussion, I'm finding it difficult to uncover the argument as to why Office Open XML needs to be in the distinguish disambiguation tag. The guideline for disambiguation may be found at WP:DAB. The article seems to give no explanation as to why there would be any confusion between the two names. The current edit mentions that it's "another XML format" (paraphrase), which is not a case for disambiguation, it's a case for seealso; and even then, only if it hasn't yet been worked into the article. An anonymous user removed it earlier today and the edit was reverted. I'm removing it again, looking forward to hearing counter-arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, nevermind, took to long to post, and now it's full-protected. Oh well, the argument stands for discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
An anon just removed it; it's been there for quite a while now, presumably because there may be confusion amongst non-technical readers of the difference between this document format and the one promulgated by Microsoft. The Office Open XML has a similar link to this page; we should either have both or neither so that no favouritism is being shown towards one format or the other. I think the long disambiguations at the beginnings of articles are ridiculous, anyways -- it's a sign that we need a proper disambiguation page. Warren -talk- 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. The OOXML article does not disambiguate here at this time (I'm assuming someone fixed it, too lazy to parse the history), and I agree, it has no reason to do so. -Verdatum (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed it, actually :-) ... nobody seems to be contesting it so far. Warren -talk- 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)