Talk:OpenDocument standardization

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Again, this is a part of an effort to reduce the length of the article OpenDocument. It still needs to be fully wikified and have its references moved from that article. --Thephotoman 04:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph needs to be updated to reflect the approval of ODF as an ISO standard. --88.153.141.98 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with OpenDocument/Standardization[edit]

I think deleting all the anti-MS nonsense makes the article's size manageable; otherwise, maybe adding a subsection OpenDocument/Stantardization may be enough.--- Louie 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section Next Steps is inaccurate, because ODF is now a full ISO standard. The "Next Steps" are maintenance and the revision for ODF 1.2 in 2007. Some of this material might be better moved to some section on ISO procedure for PAS standards. The paragraph on ODF going to W3C is dubious/ludicrous, because W3C is an organization that does web standards not office standards; they will not be interested in diluting HTML. Rick Jelliffe 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quite much controvercy about Microsoft gettin "special treatment" because of so-called fast track process. But didn't in fact the same fasttrack-process take place in ODF too? If this is true, then the article should clearly state that. 83.145.205.27 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

How about just OpenDocument standardization? It's simple and it doesn't imply that the possibly disparate standardization efforts are part of a single process, as OpenDocument standardization process does. Wmahan . 04:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded. I'll go ahead and do the move... Louie 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic + importance[edit]

The article is somewhat out of sync with the main article

The current state is not clearly document, neither is the standardization process (maybe a time line would help?)

Furthermore the topic is already covered in OpenDocument and probably does not require a separat article

Member list needs verifcation

-- 62.178.136.129 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a stub, not unencyclopedic. Inasmuch as Apple's Intel transition is worthy of an article, this is. Switching and standardizing to OpenDocument is significant, and documenting the process is essential. Sean Hayford O'Leary 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notability[edit]

I removed the "importance" tag, since this subject is undoubtably notable, as proved by the many references in the main article. However, some cleanup may be required. See Talk:OpenDocument#Standardization, again.

Sorted as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OpenDocument standardization. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://madpenguin.org/cms/index.php/?m=show&opt=printable&id=5304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]