Talk:OpenDocument adoption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is a length-reducing fork of information originally found at OpenDocument, which had grown too long. References and links from that page may still need to be moved, and wikification is still necessary. --Thephotoman 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic contents and controversial tone[edit]

This page may be unencyclopedic, documenting an ongoing public debate. Louie 05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would argue that documenting an ongoing public debate in a neutral manner is a function that is both appropriate and useful in an encyclopedia. Could you please describe some specific concerns? Wmahan. 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
My main objection is that articles like this one look a little more like newspaper dossiers than encyclopedia articles. In general, I frown at articles describing current events. So I know I may be wrong overall, but I wouldn't search for current events info in an encyclopedia.--- More specifically, this article and its European counterpart are written in a controversial tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia: it's like a USENET holy war on [text editors|operating systems|programming languages] transferred to wikipedia. Louie 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Im a proponent of articles like this in wikipedia. I think it is informative and just the kind of thing that can happen here and not many other places. I do also agree that it deals with very current events and caution must be made to keep it from being news. I also agree the tone should be edited out a bit. zorkerz (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of opendocument is not up to date[edit]

In the "European Governments" section, there is a paragraph regaring ODF status as a standard, that is not up to date, Opendocument was accepted as ISO/IEC 26300 on may 2006.


"(....) Many expect ISO will accept and approve OpenDocument using its fast-track process, and that once ISO ratifies the standard, the European Union will require OpenDocument as the office suite standard for the European Union."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.81.181 (talkcontribs) 03:42, 1 July 2006

France and ODF[edit]

France has adopted ODF as a standard for government publications [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talkcontribs) 11:17, 5 October 2006

Yes, but there is a beta version of document. Now, the final version is here and Office Open XML are the egal of ODF. You can read the document here http://www.references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/RGI_Version1%200.pdf
This document recommande to use a document on XML format and normalise by ISO: Pour les échanges de documents bureautiques semi-structurès en mode révisable, il est RECOMMANDÉ d'utiliser un format de document basé sur le language XML et dont les spécifications sont normalisés par l'ISO"
And th RGI recommande to use PDF 1.7 ISO 24517-1:2008 (but the pdf's document is on 1.4 produce by Acrobat Distiller 6.0.1 fo Word :-| ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.160.178 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement about OpenDocument Foundation position[edit]

The statement about the Foundation's position is misleading, "Since then in 2007 Massachusetts has amended its approved technical standards list to include Office Open XML which leds to notable ODF supporters stating that the progress of Opendocument would be halted." As the co-author of the cited article, I will not correct the statement myself in deference to the Wikipedia conflict of interest rule. However, our article was published before Massachusetts ITD made the decision and we did not say it was the adoption of Office Open XML that led to our prediction that ODF would fail in Massachusetts and globally. It was the fact that the big vendor-controlled ODF technical committee has refused to remove the interoperability barriers from ODF. The approval of OOXML by ITD in our view was only a consequence of big vendor abuse of the ODF specification, a view covered in far more detail in our cited article. Marbux 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Time to remove template yet?[edit]

Can we remove the wikify link yet? Kushal 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One of countless NATO standards?[edit]

While it's true that it's a mandatory NATO standard, so is the office 2003/XP format, XML, RTF and a whole lot of other formats that these documents could be published in according to that reference. The way it's worded without mentioning of any other you would think (or atleast I did) that it's the standard to be used in all things. A "one of NATOs mandatory document standards" or some such would be much clearer, imo. I'm not going to edit it though since I fear thouching other peoples work while not being that experienced with Wikipedia editing. --Landorq (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the data dump[edit]

I just copied a whole pile of new information from OpenDocument to reduce it's length again.

My apologies for ruining the formatting of this document as they tended to be in point form. Hopefully I'll have time to do some clean up work soon. Lod (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

old image[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OpenDocument_adoption_world_map.svg

> OpenDocument has been officially approved by national standards bodies of Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Hungary, Italy, Malaysia, Russia, South Korea, South Africa and Sweden.[2]

I thought that Russia was this fairly large country in Asia. It doesn't seem to be coloured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.83.207 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)