Showing posts with label ODF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ODF. Show all posts

March 27, 2012

Happy Document Freedom Day!

DFD 2012 Flyer
Yup, it's today, happy Document Freedom Day! For those that don't know what's this all about, Document Freedom Day is a worldwide event to celebrate and promote Document Freedom and Open Standards. As I put it on the "Testimonials" page,
Open Standards and Document Freedom are not only essential, but its importance is more visible as time passes by. From official documents and government websites to cientific archives or medical records, citizens in the digital era deal - or try to - with digital documents every day. It is crucial not only to ensure that they can easily do so, without obstacles, but also to prevent us from a dark future, by providing the right means of archival of all that information.
ANSOL is going to spend the day doing cool things about the issue, but as always we wanted also to party to everyone interested, so we're organizing a nice dinner party, and you are of course invited! If you're not in Portugal that's no excuse: there are 48 events in 21 different countries: some parties, some educational, but all of them fun! If you think Open Standards are not that important, consider this: in 2004, during the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the rescue operators of different countries were unable to exchange information about the ongoing operations, because they all used different closed formats of documents. This massively slowed down and complicated the coordination of rescue actions. Lots of human lives were put into danger just because vendors did not care about use of open standards in their products. And this is just one example. So, what are you waiting for? Join us!

July 23, 2008

Busy Times

My "busy times" continue, and I don't expect to recover from my "blog posts scarcity" in the next following months: I'll have some vacations next month, but I intend to use those days to rest, and avoid using a computer... Of course, you can keep track of what I've been doing via FriendFeed, a tool I'm now addicted to, to the point of having replaced my regular RSS reader by it. But there are still some news I want to talk about:

There's a new ARG comming out, and I'm eager to try it, play it or at least keep track of it. I'm talking about Deleted: The Game - an ARG centered in a female vlog'er that moved to NYC and met a guy that is funding a startup that aims to protect its costumers from identity theft... Seems realy fun.

There's a new DNS flaw out there, so if you're a system administrator and have to maintain some DNS servers, you must check it out. It's grave, and you most probably are affected.

Some music-related news: a piece on a particular music retailer, that sells music for USA prisions, shows the real impact new technologies have on the music market, since this guy doesn't have any of those problems. Curious how he sells more Cassettes than CDs, and how his major problem nowadays is the fact that less stuff is released in this format.

After a discussion on a private mailing list about the fact that it is almost impossible to buy a computer without having to buy Windows, even if you don't want it (and if it is right or wrong, if it should be considered bundling or not, and if governments should put a hand on the issue or let markets work for themselves), a new story about someone buying a laptop and then forcing the vendor to return the software money appeared. This time it was an HP laptop with Windows Vista, which wasn't used by the buying since he didn't agreed with its User Agreement.

Regarding to events, I'm planning to go to Aveiro for DebianDayPT 2008, then to Coimbra for BarCamp Portugal 2008, and then to Amsterdam in September to attend to IBC 2008. I'll probably have to miss SHiFT 2008 here in Lisbon in October, but it promises to be a hell of a conference, and you should check it out.

NATO has included ODF in its list of mandatory standards to promote interoperability. NATO's standards list includes RTF, XML, but not OOXML, Microsoft's direct competitor to ODF, which is currently undergoing a controversial ISO certification process. Observers say that the Dutch Defence Ministry threw its weight behind ODF. The public sector in the Netherlands expressly supports open standards and open source.

Against experts' recommendations, against innovation, fairness, artists and consumers, EU decided that copyright should be extended to 95 years after death. This is still no final decision, and there's a lot of work to do in order to prevent this.

Finaly, the European directive I called "Big Brother directive" back in 2005, was now implemented in Portugal, making it the second European country (after Sweden) to implement it. Now, every Portuguese "comunication service" provider has three months to prepare everything to comply with the law and start spy and logging their costumers comunications. Or switch countries.

June 12, 2008

Document standards: there can be only one?

The Inquirer is running a story telling that Brydon, from ISO, told them that

"Naturally, its desirable that there is only one international standard. The market seems to be going for two. But eventually one international standard will be listed."

Considering that there is already one document standard, ODF, and that OOXML is not a standard, is there that much to say? Obivously the right conclusion for this whole thread is that ISO should say NO to OOXML as an ISO standard, and the worldwide focus (including that of Microsoft) should be into making ODF better. Looking to what already happened in the last few years regarding to OOXML this is improbable: Microsoft is surely going to apply their unethical tatics to ruin the digital documents world...

April 04, 2008

After OOXML, XPS

When you thought that OOXML was enough trouble, XPS comes to be talked about. Many people just ask why Microsoft decided to create a "standard" (OOXML) to something that already had one (ODF). My answer is: "why should they use what everyone uses, when they can make anyone use what they're using?". Sucks, I know. But OOXML was just a start: now I start to understand why Marcos Santos (from Microsoft) kept saying "we should look into the future". Is the future "let's replace every standard with a Microsoft format"? Seems so, considering they're now trying to make XPS an ISO standard.

Here's a nice looking table where you can easily understand what am I talking about (shamelessly copied from this post):

Feature OOXML XPS
Origin Microsoft Microsoft
Editor Microsoft via Rex Jaeschke Microsoft via Rex Jaeschke
Standards Body Microsoft via MS-ECMA Microsoft via MS-ECMA
Patents Microsoft promise OSP Microsoft promise CP
Duplication ODF ISO26300 PDF ISO32000
ISO Liaisons ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
ISO plans in progress will be submitted to ISO
Restricted technologies WMA, WMV, MP3, OLE, Binary space, Macros HD-Photo


So, it seems that after forcing their own replacement for ODF, they're now trying to do the same for PDF. What will come next? HTML? Place your bets...

April 01, 2008

OOXML approved as an ISO standard


Specially during the last year, I talked about OOXML several times in this blog. Despite already existing already an open standard for documents, Microsoft pushed its own format to be an ISO standard, and, using polemic tactics, they finally made it. The official press release isn't out there yet (it will be today), but both ECMA and Microsoft already made press releases announcing the approval.

What does this mean? Is it a defeat? As you know if you've read my previous comments on OOXML, I was against it being an ISO standard. Now that it is, it is important to stress the importance that there are two standards, ODF and OOXML, and of those only ODF is open. But I don't consider all the work made to rise issues on OOXML was in vain. The discussion arose lots of awareness about OOXML problems. OOXML was modified since its submission, and while it still has several critical problems, it is now better than it was one year ago. And the whole issue isn't over yet.

What is there to be done? Well, first of all, it's important to act wisely and understand that now that OOXML is an ISO standard, it should be supported in the biggest number of applications and platforms. For instance, OpenOffice still doesn't support OOXML (although it is already in their roadmap). Also, standards aren't immutable. The work into maintaining and enhancing document standards just doubled, but it's something that must be done. There's already work being done for ODF 1.2 (expected to be an ISO standard on Summer 2009), but surely there will be plans to release new versions of OOXML. This is quite important and shouldn't be ignored, also by (maybe specially by) people that, like me, don't like OOXML. That is the opportunity to fix OOXML problems, but there's an huge risk of having new versions pushed by Microsoft using the same tactics that were used now, making OOXML even worse for everyone but Microsoft. We all should have our eyes open to that possibility, specially because many people might expect that new versions should be automaticly approved just because the actual specification is already an ISO standard.

It that it? Will we have to deal with two standards, implement two standards, do twice the work? Well, maybe it's time to - without prejudice into the work on ODF and OOXML - create yet another format that deprecates both ODF and OOXML. This is something I really don't like, and don't think I'm recommending that, but I'm afraid that, in a not so distant future, that might be the only way of fixing all this double standards mess.

But, but... What credibility can have a standard that was approved like this? Well, not much - for those of us who know what happened, and what are the flaws in OOXML. But for non-tech people, like politicians, librarians, teachers, and everyone else, it will not be clear that this standard isn't a good choice. And here's where we must act. For instance, EU wants to have all their documents in a standard format. We (Europeans) are the ones who should show them why they shouldn't choose OOXML. Who else?

UPDATE: ISO official announcement here

March 25, 2008

Document Freedom Day


This one is going to be short, I promise.

Tomorrow is going to the the "Document Freedom Day". I intend to celebrate it in Lisbon. If you want to celebrate it in Portugal you might be interested in checking about the events in Lisbon and Oporto. If you want to know about other countries, there's a list aggregating the events happening all over the world.

Document Freedom is an important matter. I've been a fan and user of LaTeX for more than 10 years. The main reason I liked it in the first place was the easyness of creating, writting an maintaining a document. I remember having a really old 386 laptop which only use was a LaTeX compiler, the vim editor and a DVI viewer. What starting as being "wow, this is a cool new way of doing stuff, without that boring formating crap and I'm really more produtive with it!", quickly started being a lot more things, as I stumbled upon more advantadges. See, LaTeX is an Open Format. Besides being available in any Operating System I stumbled upon, the fact that it is distributed under the terms of the LPPL, thus being free software, made it suitable for a lot of uses. Heck, I earned some real money doing translators and interpreters of, or using, LaTeX. The beauty of it was that, since it was open, anybody could read, alter, interpret or otherwise manipulate a TeX document. I was happy, but the format never was really adopted but in some specific cases or scenarios, and in the academic world (specially Mathmatics, since LaTeX has the most powerful - in my oppinion at least - way of representing math formulas). On one hand, LaTeX is only suitable to produce word processing documents, formulas or presentations. Office suites give you that, and also spreadsheets and charts. On the other hand, even if fully documented, LaTeX (and TeX) aren't standards.

I heard for the first time about ODF in 2002. Of course I knew that there were concurrent formats to those of Microsoft Office, but as soon as I heard about ODF I became more happy. No, I wasn't intending to be a ODF user. I still do my documents in LaTeX, even today. But this was - finaly - a document format, open as (La)TeX, but an "office suite format", meaning that it would also cover spreadsheets and charts. The cherry on the top of the cake, those making ODF happen wanted it to be an Open Standard. Great! I was not the only one - of course - understanding the power and importance of an Open Standard for documents. Documents in an open format - specially if regulated by a standards body, warrants you long-term access to data without legal or technical barriers. In 2004 the European Union understood its importance, and demanded from the existing vendors the existence of a document standard. The ODF work was already being done, and in 2005 ODF became an OASIS standard, a step into 2006 where it became an ISO standard. In that same year I attended to XTech '06, where I met Donna that spoke about ODF, Our Document Future. It was a great presentation in many ways: The talked about the importance of digital preservation, how can we do it, and why ODF was the best choice. She then talked about the massive adoption that ODF was already having in Australia, with the Digital Preservation front efforts. That was just the beggining: Italy adopted ODF in 2007, the same year that saw ODF 1.1 as an ISO standard (1.2 should be ready in summer 2009), and nowadays ODF is being considered and already adopted, in some cames more massively than in others, in countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, France, Norway, Japan, Germany and Malaysia.

But Donna also told in her 2006's presentation that the future would bring us dark clouds in our sunshining scenario: Microsoft and OOXML. She was right. See, Microsoft has no commercial interest of adopting ODF (or any standard, for the matter). Yet, with all political pressure, it is mandatory that they support a standard... So they decided to create their own, which was aprooved as an ECMA standard in December 2006 and is now in the process of trying its aprooval as an ISO standard. Microsoft doesn't really support ODF (despite their trolls saying "but we pay for the development of converters!"): if they wanted to support the ODF standard, even if not their format of choice, ODF would be integrated in a stock instalation of their Office Suite. Also, if you considered that they were never interested in contributing into making ODF a better standard (which would be the natural action of a party interested in the field) that would serve for their technical purposes, you can't really think nor expect people to believe that Microsoft was really interested in a standard. But OOXML is worse than that: it isn't open (thus, even if it turns into a standard it will never be an open standard), is encumbered with software patents, while supposedly being a XML format (like ODF) has in its specs examples that show invalid XML, and has an incomplete specification.

I could go on and on about all the process and steps that Microsoft made this last couple of years to make OOXML a standard, refering to the way they admitedly bought votes and comitees, how issues were handled and so far, but I don't think that's useful. Last October I was invited to be the chair to a debate about ODF and OOXML. Not even one of the dozens of entities that supposedly support OOXML in Portugal were available to attend. The excuse of Microsoft, for instance, was that "during the aproval process there were made personal acusations to Microsoft workers in newspapers and blogs, so we don't have conditions in participating". This same Microsoft employee writes frequently in several blogs whenever the issue arises. But what really made me stop writting much about the issue was the fact that... it's a war I can't win, and that pisses me off. Everytime someone talks about the issue, dozens of Microsoft-payed people (they admited it) go to the blogs and flood them with lies, circular references, and anti-IBM or anti-SUN messages. They have the means and the money to do that, I don't. But I still have the truth with me, and tomorrow I'll show it. Because the world doesn't need to be controled by some corporation. The world needs Document Freedom.

November 27, 2007

Update

I know, I know... I've been quite lazy lately regarding this blog, and have been posting mere links instead of proper blog posts. Sorry, but that isn't going to change soon. On the other hand, I'll try to explore a bit more the story behind each of those links.

One of thinks that I tell a lot regarding iPod's and the iPhone is that, while I understand that some people don't see any problem at all with having a device that will only work in a certain setup and under certain circumstances, I don't see myself getting a music player or a cellphone that would force me to use a certain program, Operating System or stuff like that. I mean, if it was a technological issue... but it isn't! Any music player can be designed to work just like any other USB device, be USB mountable and work as an USB disk and at the same time play its files. That will make it work in any operating system, in any piece of software. Now, iPod's or iPhones... Fred Emmott wrote an HOWTO [1] on how to make your iPod Touch or iPhone (and, I guess, later iStuff) work with Amarok. While I think it is awsome that he had the work of writting it, the biggest value of this HOWTO is just to prove my point: why the hell should a buyer have to do all that mess to make the piece of hardware they bought work?

Last100 also talks about the iPhone, but regarding the mobile web [2]. It doesn't bring as nothing really new, but it's quite a good overview of what's the state of "mobile web", a term that I don't really like: we're not really talking about something called "mobile web", only about "the web" as viewed in mobile devices... My question regarding these matters is: the biggest problem with the adoption of mobile devices as web clients is the services or the devices? In other words: if you don't use your mobile devices as web terminals, is it because your service isn't as good as you wanted to (bandwith, price, ...) or is it because your device isn't really fit for the job? (keyboard and screen limitations, usability, ...)

While we're walking towards a more digital future, the record industry simply does not get it. One great example of that was given yesterday, when Doug Morris, Universal Music CEO, admited he knows nothing about the music industry of nowadays [3]. The article is called "Universal Music CEO Doug Morris Speaks, Recording Industry in Even Deeper Shit Than We Thought", and the title says it all.

In the same veign of digital weirdness, we still have the ODF x OOXML war. An e-book is being written about the whole issue, so you might be interested in reading it [4].

Finaly, the new trend in social networks: Facebook. If you're a regular reader of this blog you already know by now that I don't like it nor its privacy policies so I decided to suspend my account. Also, you'll notice that there's a lot of fuss lately regarding facebook's privacy issues. TechCrunch tells us that the privacy issues will continue [5], but in Mashable we have an article about what's happening to Facebook business-wise [6]. But the most important thing about this, in my oppinion, came from Cory Doctorow, that tells us not only why is FaceBook going to die but also all the other (generic?) social networks [7]. It's a social issue, really: as Pedro Custodio said in his presentation at the Web 2.0 Expo Berlin, we're kind of afraid of refusing "friend invites" from people we don't really consider friends... Of course that this is something easily fixed, but they must think about the issue first, and I don't see them doing such.

Oh, today is the release date for the new book Exodus to the Virtual World: How Online Fun Is Changing Reality" [8], which I'm probably going to buy as soon as a paperback edition comes out. The author says this about the book [9]:

I try to project the medium-term impact of virtual worlds on daily life in the real world, especially in regards to politics and policy. To make projections, I rely on the history of human migration: knowing in general what happens when people migrate, we can forecast what?s going to happen as people migrate to virtual worlds. To explain why many will migrate, I propose a psycho-physiological theory of fun. Then I argue that the people who design virtual worlds are actually doing public policy. As such, their innovations will bleed over into real-world policy-making. You get some odd outcomes when you suggest that real world governments will try to please citizens raised in virtual world policy environments: things like zero economic growth, huge estate taxes, and full-employment economies, all at once. Bottom line: big political change is coming.



[1] - http://www.fredemmott.co.uk/blog_121
[2] - http://smallr.net/mobile-web
[3] - http://smallr.net/DougMorris112007
[4] - http://smallr.net/war-of-the-words
[5] - http://smallr.net/facebook-privacy
[6] - http://smallr.net/facebook-business
[7] - http://smallr.net/facebook-death
[8] - http://smallr.net/exodus-virtual-world
[9] - http://smallr.net/about-exodus-vw

October 09, 2007

ODF x OOXML in Lisbon's first Free Software Forum

Next Friday and Saturday we'll have in Lisbon [1] the "I Fórum de Software Livre de Lisboa", an event about Free Software.

Saturday, from 15:00 to 16:30, I'm going to chair a debate called "ODF x OOXML" were we'll focus on the following topics:
  • The need of a standard

  • The standard format creation process

  • The adoption process of a standard format

  • The importance of document formats to our future

  • ODF x OOXML - adopt which one?


For now we'll have the presence of ANSOL and SUN in the debate. I'm still trying to find out someone willing to participate in the debate who thinks that OOXML is what should be adopted. I'll write about that later, probably after the debate.

See you there!


[1] - http://www.softwarelivre.com.pt/ptematico.php

June 25, 2007

Say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

You know Office? Yeah, that tool people use for producting documents, of almost any type: memos, reports, books, spreadsheets, charts, presentations, word processing documents... So, nowadays
we have an Open Standard for such documents: ODF (OpenDocument Format). If you're into this issue, you may already know that Microsoft has their own new format, Office Open XML (OOXML), and they're trying to make it also an ISO standard.

Why is it bad?

  1. There is already a standard ISO26300 named Open Document Format (ODF): a dual standard adds costs, uncertainty and confusion to industry, government and citizens;
  2. There is no provable implementation of the OOXML specification: Microsoft Office 2007 produces a special version of OOXML, not a file format which complies with the OOXML specification;
  3. There is missing information from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
  4. More than 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate as XML;
  5. There is no guarantee that anybody can write a software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent damages or patent license fees by Microsoft;
  6. This standard proposal conflicts with other ISO standards, such as ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times), ISO 639 (Codes for the Representation of Names and Languages) or ISO/IEC 10118-3 (cryptographic hash);
  7. There is a bug in the spreadsheet file format which forbids to enter any date before the year 1900: such bugs affects the OOXML specification as well as software versions such as Microsoft Excel 2000, XP, 2003 or 2007.
  8. This standard proposal has not been created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties (such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators), but by Microsoft alone.

If you agree with me and also think that these are reasons enough for a rejection of OOXML as a standard, please sign this petition!