On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:15:44AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > On 10/29/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed > > > (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply > > > flawed standard.
Flawed at the legal, organizational or technical level Legally I am on thin ice, the council I've contacted opined strictly on Gnumeric's ability to ship filters. Organizationally the ODF has a somewhat more open standardization process. In that the OO.o implementers are involved directly. Whereas the ECMA TC could mostly review only the documentation, and not make substantive changes to the format itself. On the other hand, OASIS has been less welcoming of non-profit membership than ECMA. Technically the case is far from clear cut. OOX and ODF each have significant flaws. Each of them abound with questionable design elements that limit 3rd party implementions, cause performance problems, and documentation that at times seems to cover only the simple cases, while ignoring the important elements. The FUD flowing through the community has played on our rational mistrust of Microsoft's intentions, to distract from the details. There are two truths that need to be accepted 1) ODF is an excellent start for OO.o's file format, but it is not perfect and will never be 'the one true office format' for all office applications without destroying it's utility by diluting it with so much random cruft that no implementation would be complete, and interoperability would suffer. 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted. It's not as good as having the source code to OO.o there to read yourself (which is why free software will eventually dominate) but it is a step forward. How we proceed from there is open for debate. My contention is that the FLOSS community should do what it does best, write good software. We should support the use of free software and advocate for Gnumeric or AbiWord or OO.o on their plentiful merits. Interested community members should also join both ODF and OOX committees to help improve the specifications. The number of people actually involved in the standards is pitifully small considering the size of the problem space, and the centrality of 'office-ish' applications. > > Right. I should be blamed for not getting the press release out. Not > > that the flame is correct (it's not) or even would have been prevented > > by a press release. It's not like anybody cared to contact Jody or the > > board or foundation before flaming... > > I was called on the phone, twice now. I'm surprised no one tried > (apparently) to contact Jody or the board. Jeff and the board brought this to my attention Sunday as I was bundling the kids off the sleep. No effort was made by the letter's author, or anyone else to contact me. > This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed > that the board took the time to approve an action that obviously > exposed GNOME to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR > steps to reduce that impact. You are correct, and I take responsibility for opening the issue, and not writing a press release to protect the foundation from the obvious attack. The effort is hampered by my disagreeing with the opinion you, and much of the community appear to hold. I think OOX should be blessed as a standard, 'the MS Office XML File Format' and that we should do everything we can to improve the specification of that and any other format we interact with. If that level of disagreement is unacceptable in the community then I can leave ECMA and request that they discontinue the GNOME Foundation's membership. In my opinion that would be a step backwards. The morning commute is calling, Jody _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list