Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Criticism of ZIP

I removed the criticism that ODF does not refer to ZIP as a standard and the change was reverted by User:Warren. I think the text in question is an invalid ODF criticism as ZIP is not any kind of formal standard, so hardy a fault of ODF. What is more the source is a personal blog (although it's a very fine personal blog). Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Although I don't know much about the standard, but from the text:
* The OpenDocument Format 1.0-1.1 specifications refer to 'ZIP' files but do not reference a standard which describes the zip file format.
The specifications just "refer to" ZIP which is not supposed to be included in the spec. It is hardly to say it's a related criticism to ODF IMO. Similarly, it is hardly to say a book is bad just because it doesn't give a clear picture of what it refers to. It's acceptable to leave the ZIP unspecified/undefined IMO. - Justin545 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
We have a reliable source making the criticism -- that's the criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not our opinions on the issue. Warren -talk- 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
>> "that's the criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not our opinions on the issue"
Discussions on talk page don't need to be reliably sourced. It's the playground to make concensus. An entirely, reliably sourced material cannot be a discussion. - Justin545 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Warren, are personal blogs considered reliable sources? If you read Dennis's article you will also see that he is being humorous and subtle in criticising ZIP (he calls the criticism of ZIP a "FUD-Spat"). This so-called criticism of ODF is (a) unfounded, (b) sourced from a personal log and (c) based on a misreading of that blog. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Critisims is always POV. Important is that the POV sourced information is verifiable. That ZIP is no standard for instance is verifiable and that is the basis for the critisism. In a strange way the standardization of Office open XML which contains all the information in the ZIP appnotestxt makes it possible for the future ODF 1.2 to reference an official ISO standard for the same information and that is an official standard. hAl (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
user:HAl, get it into your head that this article is about ODF. Scientus (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

For a discussion of some of the issues see: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murray Langton (talkcontribs) 06:09, 15 June 2009

See WP:COINB for recent discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion is now archived here, although apparently unresolved. The topic was closed and BJ requested further concerns be brought up through RFAR or ANI. -kslays (talkcontribs) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Section "Response"

It seems unusaul that the OOXML page has a similar section Response. The Response section for OOXML has two subsections, Acceptance and Criticism. The ODF Response section has only Criticism. This could be seen as unfair —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- (talkcontribs) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good spot. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

CALC uses an unknown draft

"Newer implementations like 3.x Calc use an unknown draft OpenFormula specification", from the main article ..

How did OpenOffice manage to produce Calc that could read to this 'unknown draft' and how did they manage to keep it secret, even though the full source code is available?Viralmeme (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Calc is using Openfomula. This is a format still being developed. This means only draft version of the format exist. Calc is probably based on some draft version from early 2008. It will not contain any changes made in de eight or so draft versions released after that. The OpenOffice documentation or site does not show what draft specification is actually used. It is very hard to be interoperable with an implemetation of an unknown format version. hAl (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So shouldn't that be 'Calc use a draft OpenFormula specification', and where does it say on the OASIS website that it's a 'draft version' Viralmeme (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Only draft versions exist. You can find them here (State= "draft"). They are all versioned by date. Nor the OOo documentation or the OOo site states which draft version of OpenFormula is used in OOo 3.x. Knowing what format veriosn is used in OOo is important for interoperability especially if other implmentations will start to use different versions. hAl (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
FUD Alert! While you are certainly correct that only draft versions exist. Only draft versions have existed for 5 years. I quote "OpenDocument is the first format spec to include a formula specification. Contrary to what this myth might suggest, no format specification before OpenDocument format included an open specification for spreadsheet formulas. The lack of a formula specification in OpenDocument 1.0 was not an aberration. Rather, the OpenDocument community was the first in history to recognize the need for a formula specification, and wanted to ensure that it was done well. As such, we are at the forefront of the development of Open Standards. This need was first discussed in the OpenDocument TC in 2004, and it was agreed that it would be valuable (and that it would need to be done separately). The first draft of OpenFormula was released in February 2005, and was informally developed through the interaction of many in the community of OpenDocument users and application developers. OASIS formally established the formula subcommittee on February 2006; the subcommittee uses the OpenFormula project's specification as their base document. " [1] Here is the "unknown specification [2] You'll notice it is over three years old. It has certainly never been unknown or secret. There are many publications speaking of it, and it is being developed by committee members. Additionally, it is available for anyone to download. Certainly, the comment from the main article is glaring FUD. As, far as what version Open Office is using, look to the feature freeze date and then get the closest version. Or simply ask or look to the code.--Celtic hackr (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You claim FUD but actually you confirm the information in the article. Firstly in confirming that the open formula spec is still in draft (and has been for years) and secondly that you do not seem to know which draft version OOo is using either. It would be of no use if I were to research the source code. That would not be very encyclopic. I would be better if OpenOffice stated which version of OpenFormula they are using. that would also allow for verification of their implementation and more importent for identifying differences with future implementations that will use an official standard version. It is actually not good that the main ODF implementation does not say which version fo the specifcations it is using. And in those three years of development with many new draft versions the format could have changed significantly. hAl (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually as a third party who isn't in this discussion at all, I must say that it's clear that if you're ignoring the idea of researching the source code, then you don't really understand the terms of the debate and they are just in saying it's just spreading FUD... because it seems to me that your goal is not to look at the practicality of implementing the standard, but instead to find reasons a customer who is looking to use a product that supports the format shouldn't use the format. Ways they would be uncertain of their investment into the format, among other reasons to have FUD about the product... My guess is that you would recommend the alternative standard that's fully supported by a company who's been around for a long time, a company who will continue to be around to support the standard, and a company whose standard is fully documented and reliable. A standard like.... OOXML... am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OpenDocument, or OpenDocument Format?

I've been trying to figure out if the full and proper name of the format is "OpenDocument" or "OpenDocument Format". The acronym "ODF" leads me to believe the latter, but the specification documents and web sites are by no means consistent. You'll see "OpenDocument Format" and "OpenDocument format" used almost interchangably.

The reason I'm wondering this is because there may be a justification for renaming the article to "OpenDocument Format" if it's determined that this is the correct name of the standard. This article is the first Google result on the term "OpenDocument" so it's important that we get it right.

Any thoughts? Warren -talk- 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about this myself. However, since you point out that official documents are using the two casings interchangably, it is less important. I don't think we should get into renaming until we can find some authoritative statement explicitly clarifying the name. Such as an official FAQ document that answers the question, "Is it OpenDocument Format, OpenDocument format, or OpenDocument that just happens to be a format?" -Verdatum (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be able to get an official statement or FAQ update done, which in turn we can use on Wikipedia to get things sorted out. I've seen this happen before with WebKit (look at reference #1)... Warren -talk- 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be able to in the meantime use Open Document Format. Because if you use OpenDocument, and say ODF. Then people are going to find it strange that the F doesn't seem to have a purpose. Adding that Format describes accurately what it is: a format for documents. It seems a good idea to use the longer one. Thelennonorth (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll just offer the notion that for the sake of clarity and consistency, articles should bear the full name of the subject. Since ODF is an acronym for OpenDocument Format, then that's what the name of the article should be. Just my opinion, YMMV. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section is not quite as bad as I might have feared given the recent hype. However, it is lacking in sources. In an article that is the source of controversy, such as this one, facts must be backed by reliable sources. In criticism sections, claims must be actual sourced criticisms. It is not sufficient that they be true facts (even verified true facts) that particular editors just don't like. That would be Original Research. Further, it helps that they be written in a manner that states the criticism first, and then gives any background needed to understand the argument. I'll do what i can to fix the section, as time allows. -Verdatum (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want sourcing than asking for sourcing would seem better than immediatly removing the information alltogether. hAl (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I waited 4 hours before removing the information (yes, I realize that's like nothing in Wikipedia time). For policy backed edits, I prefer to be WP:BOLD. I did cursory searches for references (You'll note I added some for other sections), and when searches turned up nothing, I still left in any claims for which I felt it reasonable to believe that reliable sources exist. But in general, the claims in question made heavy use of weasel words and came off as editors' personal complaints, or the opinion of random people on forums or non-reputable blogs. Even if this is inaccurate, the perception still exists, and that weakens the article. For posterity, the edits in question are here. If anyone can find Reliable Sources, they are welcome to appropriately edit the article (in most of cases, a combination of sourcing and rewording is appropriate). -Verdatum (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed one critcism paragraph which dealt with application settings in ODF being somehow a hindrance to interoperability. It had as a reference a blog (!) from a Microsoft (!) employee. The factuality of having application settings in an ODF file somehow be a stumbling block for interoperability is in no way proved, instead it seems to be a smear campaign from a Microsoft employee against ODF. Specific application settings NEED to be undefined in ODF, as every application will have their own set of settings to define, and leaving settings from other applications uninterpreted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Does ODF really support databases?

I noticed that in the OOXML article that database support is not mentioned. Then, I found an archived discussion at that mentions that ODF actually does not have database support either despite it being listed as having it in the article. So, does ODF support databases or not? Should we have the lack of support as a criticism in the OOXML article?Danny (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, OpenDocument does not support databases. Mayby it is something for a (distant) future. It was probably initially suggested because OpenOffice has limited support for smaller databases and the ODF files are based on the submitted OpenOffice formats. However at the moment there is no roadmap to suggest any such support in the future. hAl (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well then, should there be a database infobox in the article? What about the .odb file extension in the Specifications section?Danny (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
They are meaningless as there is no support for databases in ODF. hAl (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I removed the parts that mentioned a database format. I guess there should be a section under "Criticism" that mentions that ODF does not have a database specification.
Don't think so - document file formats are not the right technology for specifying "databases". Relational databases have their own modelling languages (around SQL) and XML databases don't define formats, but accept whatever content is thrown at them. Note OOXML doesn't define a database format either, for these reasons. Both formats allow connection to relational databases ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A critisims might rather be that ODF 1.1 does define drawing, image, chart and formula filestypes (next to text, spreadsheet and presentation filetypes) which as far as I know are not used by any implementation. hAl (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There is support for databases in the .odb format. Read the odf specs: OASIS OpenDocument-v1.1.pdf
No, ODF supports various kinds of connection to databases, as I wrote above; it does not specify a storage format or engine behaviour that you'd expect for a RDBMS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah. The criticism should be accompanied by a notice that ODF does support connecting to relational databases, even if ODF doesn't have a format by itself. 3.1 uses the drawing(.odg) in Draw and formula(.odf) in Math, those filetypes are being used. Haven't seen chart filetype in my shallow inspection. This aren't criticsms and are not related to the format itself, trying to add it as a criticism is lame and will probably be quickly deleted. Thelennonorth (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What specifically isn't neutral

Pardon my ignorance, but I've read through this discussion page and I can't quite seem to find what the source of the alleged neutrality dispute actually is. What specific part of the article, as written, is biased? "Class? Anyone? Anyone?..." Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

MS Office

Does MS Office 2007/2010 really support ODF? Or is it ODF that has been MS-ified. Please clarify!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Things to Clean Up

  • Reference 8 "ISO and IEC approve OpenDocument OASIS standard for data interoperability of office applications" now points to a non-existing page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckhung (talkcontribs) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "OpenDocument 1.0 (second edition)" now points to a non-existing page.
  • Under Critisism all the bullets but one are formulated as being verified facts. But "Microsoft believes that it is not possible to implement..." is a pessimistic, subjective statement. If it was a fact, "It is not possible to implement [ever]...", it would belong here. If we were listing bugs or feature requests this list would be VERY long. Why not remove the statement, or at least move it to a new "Microsoft's opinions" section? Gigahz (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusive messages & anonymous edits

An anonymous user (at IP has now twice removed a referenced statement from the OpenDocument Foundation without justification (and I have now reverted this twice). The same user has left a message on my talk page: "Alexbrn is a Microsoft payed [sic] piece of shit. Go lick your balls, asshole." Wikipedia at its finest? (and what do other editors think?) Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

a) I think that any rudeness towards other editors is against the principles of Wikipedia; perhaps you could report this person on the adminstrators notice board.
b) But examination of the history and limited size of the Open Document Foundation suggests that this is hardly a reliable source to quote from, so I have removed this statement. Murray Langton (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure reliability comes into it - the central principle of Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" WP:VER and this organization existed, has its own Wikipedia entry, played a documented role in the development of the format under discussion, and is cited elsewhere in this entry. Removing this one mention of them has the unfortunate effect of giving this article a certain point of view Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliability is a consideration, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also, have you formally reported the abuse (if not I think you should do so)? Murray Langton (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On looking at WP:VER I see that there is a strong emphsis on reliable sources as well. Murray Langton (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No I haven't reported it. How do I? I suppose my question about this deletion is why is this statement from the OpenDocument Foundation removed, while another one is maintained (currently reference #27)? And there are many references in this article which fall below any quality/track-record/reliability bars this reference apparently fails. I can't see how this is consistent (and has the side-effect of airbrushing 'criticism' out of the article) Or is it time for a mass purge on this article? Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
One place to report uncivil language is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I observe that you have been editing Wikipedia for over 3 years now; perhaps you should consider looking around the site a bit more instead of focusing on only a few articles. Murray Langton (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look at ref #27 (a GrokLaw page). In view of the numerous comments posted it would seem that this has at least had some public scrutiny by a range of people - whether or not they actually released the software in question is another matter; perhaps you know one way or the other? Murray Langton (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Change to new ODF Icons?

Hi, I'd like to propose changing the file type icons.

Currently the article uses rather generic text document, spreadsheet and presentation icons from the Tango icon library.

I propose to use the ODF icons from the ODF toolkit.

The ODF icons from the toolkit are neutral towards vendor, platform and application. And they express the actual format ODF.

Any objections? How shall I proceed?

Thanks! Lutz. --Laushh (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just one more piece of information. The ODF icons are available under the Apache License Version 2.0. Is this "free enough" for Wikipedia? --Laushh (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Update: Done. --Laushh (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ODF database support

Someone has again added an infobox stating that the ODF spec supports databases. There is an archived discussion at Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 7#Does ODF really support databases? where I'm pretty sure that we decided that it didn't. Shouldn't someone do a good faith revert? Danny (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the good faith edit by the editor that added database infobox. Danny (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

As currently noted in the article, several of the criticisms mentioned in this section have been addressed in the newly-adopted ODF 1.2 specification. With that in mind, is there any reason not to remove these (obsolete) criticisms? We don't need any more FUD fodder than we already have, after all. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The reundancy needs to be removed, also in this section. It seems to me criticism actually means feature requests here. I would appreciate to mention better criticism of the format. The structure obfuscates it very much:
OASIS ODF 1.0, 1.1 and ISO/IEC 26300:2006 do not define a definite spreadsheet formula language, syntax or function libraries.[48][49] OASIS ODF 1.0, 1.1 and ISO/IEC 26300:2006 do not define digital signatures.[50]... ODF 1.2, approved as a committee specification by OASIS ODF TC on March 26, 2010, addresses the criticisms regarding digital signatures and standard formula format.[57]
You see? --Arebenti (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I'll go ahead and remove the "criticisms" regarding older specifications. I'll also look to see if I can find links to any legitimate criticisms to validate the statements made here. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)