This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This criticism is listed in the article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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 neededlicense 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)
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)
...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)
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 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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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.
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This criticism is listed in the article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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 neededlicense 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)
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)
...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)
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 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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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.
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)