Applications versus Formats

Yesterday I asserted that at the core of our disaffection with ODF is its supporters' fundamental view that interoperability is an application thing and not a format thing.

If you parse [Sun's] actions in the development of ODF at OASIS, you would actually understand Sun's position is that full high-fidelity interoperability is "outside the scope" of the ODF [format] specification.

Sun shares this view with Microsoft -- who are the pioneers of the ideology of application supremacy.

Our view is that if there is to be a Universal Document Format, the format must be the nexus of interoperability.

Sun's Doug Johnson reiterated the Sun position (Katherine Noyes|ECT) here again more recently ...

"[CDF] doesn't seem like a good fit," he explained. "It's not designed for this, so I'm perplexed at their desire to go in that direction."

Interoperability is a burden that should be placed on applications, not formats, Johnson said. "I don't understand why it would be incumbent on anybody's format to incorporate interoperability -- that's the application's responsibility. They're trying to put the onus in the wrong place." [my emphasis...Ed.]

What was once considered an embarrassment has somehow emerged into the light of day.

Accordingly, ODF is writing itself into history as a meetoo proprietary, application-tied specification with no intention to provide the market requirement of universal interop. ODF is therefore a sideline drama, only useful insofar as it has provided a foil for OOXML.

OOXML is so fundamentally bad as a standards proposal that its chances for success at ISO in February cannot be improved or weakened by any exogenous forces. Only quirks of process and bribery can help it.

Comments

[jramskov]

So, now you're trying to push a third format that's got very little chance of succes?!

One more thing: You should have abandoned the name before announcing that you're working on a different format. Calling yourself "The Open Document Foundation" is just bad style. That makes your credibility low in my eyes.

[Sam]

jramskov-

Thank you for your thoughts.

We'll take your advice on-board.

[Mohammad Khan]

How is CDF going to solve the puzzle of MS closed formats when they won't open it or might use patents to stop it ?

[Sam]

This is the best and most direct question, Mohammad.

We need to fight this a) in the courts & policy fronts (which is ongoing); and b) on the desktop (which has been curtailed by myopic competitive software strategy, until now).

If I reveal our thoughts on technology & licensing now, before we have running code, I risk painting us into corners as well as preparing the enemy well ahead of time for the landscape of the Battles.

So, with your kind forbearance, I'll be silent until discussion can be productive.

This might answer some of your question.

[Chris Ward]

So what did all the people who contributed to ODF, and ISO standardisation, get wrong ?

ISO26300 isn't perfect. But it is a base which can be built on. Everyone can build on it.

How would you like to build ? Can we discuss ?

[Sam]

The people you mention included us.

What was built is an alternative universe. It's not practical to require Enterprise Customers to adopt this alternative universe when their data is locked in the original universe.

We've tried to build on it and our concept is unwanted. So we are moving to yet another universe which already existed and which has the facilities to bridge the two.

Discussion is simply unproductive. But thank you, Chris.