The people behind ODF opening stated that they were not trying to make a backwards compatiable format. I'm sure that if the FULL specifications to all of the Microsoft formats had been opening available it would have been different. But such is not and most likely will not be the case. You have only to look at the OOXML proposal to realise this.

Oasis set out to make a standard format that anyone could implement in their programs, free of change, no lock-in, or other issues. Many companies have already implemented ODF, where to my knowledge there is only one implemention of OOXML, Microsoft's.

I think the problem you are facing right now is that you are locked-in. OpenOffice does a pretty good job of handling Microsoft Documents there are some problems but mostly it fringe/lesser used formatting. I have had good experinces using it and no complaints that I can recall about documents being missed up.

Just wondering what has been your experince with converting document from DOC to ODF and back? I'm not sure that it should be the job of Oasis to make that go smoother. Office Suite makers?, yes.

>>However, if it really is possible to boost fidelity between ODF-consuming applications and MS Office, then the ODF's backers should be working to make this possible.

You are placing the burden on the wrong party here. It is clearly MS's fault that this compatibility is not in place. They will not release specs for old formats, and they refuse to let you "Save as.." ODF formats in their applications. How do you propose that "ODF backers" make it possible. Perhaps you have some kind of voodoo power that you could lend?

If not, you should demand that _Microsoft_ start freeing your data, or quit using their products. Otherwise, you doom yourself to the very lock-in that you find yourself in today; don't get your panties in a wad if other vendors can't bail you out. If you really do care about your data more than the file format that contains it, it's time you switch to a more open container. See, the responsibility is, in fact, yours.

Hey Louis, verbalshadow, thanks for your comments.

My own data actually is not locked in proprietary MS formats. Microsoft doesn't make a version of Office that runs on my computer. I use a combination of OpenOffice.org, Google Docs, and plain text files for my writing and spreadsheet work.

However, I'd still like to see more diversity in the office application space. Monopoly is bad for innovation, and it's bad for business.

I've talked to many organizations considering a switch from Office or from Windows, and file format fidelity is a major roadblock for these organizations.

The primary backers of ODF--Sun and IBM--purport to offer alternatives to Office, but as long as these vendors' applications fail to address adequately MS Office formats, these ODF-based alternatives will continue to falter.

You can chide MS until you're blue in the face, but that's not going to force them to open up. Why should MS make life easier for its competitors? If the MS/ODF conversion problem is to be solved, it'll have to happen on the ODF side of the fence...

If OpenDocument lacks useful attributes that are in OOXML (note the useful component) they should be added to the next version of the standard. Passing along non-standard extensions indefinitely is not a solution. Microsoft can easily participate in this process of OpenDocument development, as they are a member of OASIS (as they have been since the beginning of the ODF standard). Thus far, they have declined to do so, which in my opinion says a lot about their antipathy towards open multi-party standards.

The Open Document Foundation is NOT the organisation behind Open Document Format and has nothing to do with the OSI which approves formats, and the fact they they have decided to drop Open Document Format is irrelevant to the public. This company can almost be classed as a kind of "domain squatter" for intentionally misleading the public with it's name.

Jason:

I was kinda referring to the anonymous "you" community out there; hope you didn't take it as a personal attack.

No matter if it's you or any random business, my conclusion stands. If businesses don't mind perpetuating their own slavery to lock-in, then they can keep on paying the crazy licensing fees and risk losing their data in the long run as old proprietary formats fall out of use.

What is sad is that businesses _demand_ ISO certification in so many other areas, but the very data that they depend on is trusted to an unstandardized monopolist. How many obsolete-and-upgrade cycles will it take for them to finally demand that their vendors use a published file format?

Wow, how nice this false thing spreads. Do you at eWeek get lazy at checking the facts that often? I understand that this was a keen trick but you bought into it: "OpenDocument Foundation" just doesn't have any positive connection to the OpenDocument Format in the first place.

http://whois.americaregistry.com/displayWhois.php?zone=opendocumentfoundation.us
=> Registrant Organization: TransNet.com

Now TransNet is Microsoft partner, and at least one of the three people in this "Foundation" was a marketing lead at openoffice.org -- who left his position not without scandal.

So, please do consider that we have at least company which is eager to deceive in this area, and who are deceiving.

No offense taken, Louis. :)

Andrew, that's a good point about the difference between the OpenDocument Foundation and the OpenDocument Format.

However, likening the Foundation to a domain squatter is inaccurate. They've been active in the ODF standards process, and they did produce a converter. I wish them well in their CDF work.

Matthew, passing along proprietary extensions doesn't sound great, I agree, but I think the basic idea has merit, and could deliver benefits even among "open" apps.

You could be using two ODF-supporting apps with different feature levels--say, google apps and OOo, and have google docs pass along unmappable formatting elements from OOo docs, so that those bits would still be around when the doc makes it back to OOo.

Actually the fact that unknown formatting is stripped out is a "feature". Using OpenOffice to convert from and back into MS Word document format was the only way I could find to remove the unstability from a huge file which needed urgent editing.

On the other hand it would allow me to completely ignore the mess in some of the the Word documents I have to translate, and would allow me to use open source Linux-compatible software.

So I'd rather have both options, please. But if this is not possible I'd rather have clean, clutter free files.

I personally do not see this as problem.

Instead of ODF vs. OOXML "holy war" which is really pointless (since it is more "open vs. proprietary" kind of war), we might get a healthy competition of file formats.

CDF vs. UOF vs. CDF competition - if set in true inter-operable environment - might be the key for the formats future evolution.

I also do not see much talked about backward compatibility as issue: all important information in any organization gets routinely translated from one format to another, from one presentation to another. The problem actually not the documents themselves - but their presentation. I for example in past helped one organization to move its .doc and .txt files onto web and integrate with intranet portal. No way you can guess how information would be accessed in two-three decades - consequently document format plays lesser role than people expect. (Now I see another shift happening: people importing their information into all kind of collaboration systems e.g. Wikis)

That actually can be seen in the actual ODF vs. OOXML struggle: only few techies see the battle as battle of formats. Normal people see that as battle of M$Office vs. StarOffice, because the office suit define presentation of document - presentation person is working with. And that's all what matter to most.

To win the war, one has to developer better, oriented on future presentation.

Michael: Here's another link to add to your web-sleuth notebook. Please refer to the last name on the members list.

And I'm sorry that your comment wasn't immediately posted--apparently, including two links in a comment flags the comment as junk...

Hi Jason,

Thanks for covering this issue. Although, �Bump� hardly begins to describe what's at stake here. The failure to successfully implement ODf in Massachusetts was a devastating blow that goes right to the heart of the matter of questions about ODf compatibility with existing Microsoft documents, and interoperability with existing MSOffice applications.

Recently i heard a comment from an analyst inquiring about our CDF plans that, �ODF is a fine format for an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist�.

This is the reality that has been avoided for the near five years i worked on the OASIS ODf Technical Committee (TC). And it shows in the marketplace where ODf has decidedly won the hearts and souls, but failed on implementation. The good intentions and declarations of support for ODf keep coming, but real world implementation successes remain few and far between. I wonder how long this dance of disappointing consequence can last.

But let's get to the questions and answers. We believe the facts will bear out our version of events, the results of which have compelled us to move on to CDF. First with reluctance and great sadness. But then, as the wonders of CDF flexibility and reach folded out before us, we came to consider the sad events involving ODf as the best thing that could have ever happened to us. We believe CDF is fully capable of taking on MS-OOXML as a worthy alternative in a world dominated by MSOffice. A world moving at ever increasing speed towards the Exchange/SharePoint Hub and entangling binds of the MS Stack.

So let's get to some answers.

In Massachusetts, a year long pilot study concerning the implementation of ODf using ODf applications (OpenOffice, StarOffice, WorkPlace, Novell Office alternatives to MSOffice), was followed by a second year long effort to implement ODf using plug-ins for MSOffice. Finally after two years of effort to implement ODf as a government wide standard failed, Massachusetts moved to recognize MS-OOXML as a needed file format. Notably, this decision was made just prior to the September 2, 2007 ISO vote on MS-OOXML, but following the final delivery of Sun's ODf plug-in. Whoops. Looks like they didn't consider the ISO vote relevant to their future needs.

The simple truth is that ODf was not designed to meet the important requirements of compatibility with existing MS file formats, and interoperability with existing MSOffice applications.

This issue itself has a long history going back to the very first OASIS Open Office XML TC meeting that took place on December 16th , 2002, and continues as a troubling issue for OASIS ODF.

By the time we arrived with our first da Vinci prototype, (June 19th, 2006 � at a day long event hosted by IBM at their Lotus International Center in Cambridge, MA), the success of ODf in Massachusetts hung by a thread. The Pilot Study had been a disaster for ODf. And to hit the high fidelity �round trip� conversion needs of an ODf plug-in for MSOffice, we needed five generic eXtensions to ODf which we called the iX interoperability enhancements.

The first of the six major iX proposals was submitted to OASIS for discussion on July 12th, 2006. The first three iX proposals, and a fourth metadata � RDF/XML related effort were all signed off on by CIO Louis Gutierrez and Timothy Vaverchak. IBM was fully aware of these efforts and participated in every discussion.

By April of 2007 it was clear that we would never get our critically important ODf iX proposals, including the metadata requirements, through OASIS. This was the end of any hopes we had for our ODf da Vinci plug-in.

It's also true that in December of 2006 when we renewed our Foundation OASIS membership, we discovered that the 501c(3) category had been quietly discontinued. Although we renewed based on OASIS assurances that we could continue to sponsor our many participating members, by April of 2007 OASIS administration enforced the corporate rules that only the employees of company can participate. While the 501c(3) IRS rules recognize volunteers as having �equivalent� employee status, OASIS does not. The Foundation could no longer fulfill our primary purpose of sponsoring the participation open source community members, experts, and independent developers in an open standards process increasingly dominated by large corporate application vendors. Overnight our membership was cut from 15 to 2.

By May of 2007 we were back to the W3C, looking at the progress made with XHTML 2.0 and CSS 3.0, hoping they might prove to be possible alternatives to MS-OOXML. What we found however was the absolutely extraordinary work the W3C had done on CDF.

By the end of September 2007, our testing of CDF was complete. We knew we could get back in the battle with Microsoft and go after the great 550 million herd of MSOffice bound workgroup desktops. The very same desktops that we had failed to provide a transition to ODf.

As far as our participation in OASIS ODf? Well, the OpenDocument Foundation had NOTHING to do with ODf 1.0 and ISO 26300. Nada, zero, zip, buttkiss. The Foundation was formed after May of 2005 when ODf 1.0 was first approved by OASIS and sent on to ISO.

But there's more to the story. IBM, Novell, Adobe, Intel, Oracle, and all the other big wheels churning ODf 1.2 similarly joined the OASIS ODf TC after the May 2005 OASIS approval. By the time they joined, ISO DIS 26300 was in the mail. So they too had NOTHING whatsoever to do with ODf 1.0! Nada, zip, zero, buttkiss. Same with the OpenDocument Fellowship, the OpenDocument Alliance, and the OpenDocument Adoption TC.

If you want to know who is responsible for ODf 1.0 and ISO DIS 26300, check the OASIS roster and participation records. They're public. The list includes Boeing, Sun, Arbortext, Stellent, Corel, TrollTech � KOffice, FourThought, SpeedLegal, National Archive of Australia, Blast Radius, and the Society of Biblical Literature (my apologies if i miss someone). Uniquely, i was the only �independent� volunteer serving on the OASIS ODf TC from 2002 through May of 2005.

In September of 2004, when the EU presented the ODf TC with a number of difficult requests to change the name, insist that we prepare to submit to ISO, and implement support for key W3C technologies such as XForms, SVG and SMiL, there were only six members on the TC. In May of 2005, with all the marbles riding on OASIS approval of ODf 1.0 and the send to ISO, there were only eight active members on the ODf TC.

Of course, with the May 2005 success of ODf 1.0, and ISO DIS 26300 in the mail and on the way, the OASIS ODf TC exploded with new members like IBM. The OpenDocument Foundation was actually created in response to the corporate vendor tsunami that IBM led. We felt it very important that the undue and overwhelming influence of large application vendors be balanced out by the participation of open source communities, independent experts and independent developers. The Foundation sponsored upwards of 15 active members at any one time, all of whom were making outstanding contributions to the ODf. The contributions to Open Formula and Metadata Sub Committees stand out in particular.

But like IBM, Novell and Adobe, the Foundations' members work was totally related to ODf 1.1 and 1.2 work. None of which has been approved by either OASIS or ISO.

So, what next? There is only one thing left for the Foundation to do; the submission to OASIS of the Universal Interoperability Framework Proposal. The day that proposal is submitted will be the end of the OpenDocument Foundation as both an OASIS member organization, and, an active 501c(3). The end.

The Universal Interoperability Framework Proposal is designed to enable ODf 1.2 to meet ISO Interoperability Requirements. Un beknownst to many, there is a May 2006 ISO Directive insisting that ODf be brought into compliance with ISO Interoperability Requirements. This proposal is designed to accomplish that. As such, it is beyond important. And it is our last official act with OASIS and ODf. The Foundation will be no more.

The close of the Foundation will also mark our departure from open standards work. The world of CDF is enormous, and involves a galaxy of standards efforts. There are opportunities everywhere. For us though, five years is enough. Besides, from everything we see the W3C CDF galaxy of open standards is in a class by itself. Their work is extraordinary. The best contribution we could ever make is by providing the marketplace with sound implementations able to bridge the gap between the great herd of 550 million MSOffice bound desktops, and the Web Platform where CDF is destined to rule the grand convergence of desktop, server, device and web systems.

I have provided some lengthy responses at this thread that hopefully will help those who seek to understand our decision to push forward with CDF.

And thanks Jason for the fair and balanced coverage. I'm looking forward to showing you how ACME 376 can be piped into CDF without loss, and back again. A few more weeks i hope :)

~ge~

Hey buddy, can you spare me a garage?

This seems like a non-issue, except to the MS PR people.

Sam Hiser published a paper in June of this year trumpeting the openness of ODF. It is posted on his own website: (http://fussnotes.typepad.com/Achieving_Openness_1point0.html). That's two months AFTER the Foundation says it soured on ODF.

A more reasonable explanation for the about-face is the software plug-in he's been marketing, and the financial gains he stands to make by creating drama where there is none.