My personal opinion in this matter is that it does not matter what others do. All that counts is that ODF 1.3 is out.
If others want to join the party everyone is welcome. If they do not want to that is fine, too. I am personal very happy that the TDF has managed to organize this. And I am excited to work on this. So I would like to focus on the Todos what we need to do in order to get this done. My fist Ideas would be: # compare 1.3with 1.2 or see if we get any other compares of changes. # Then we need to check what is covered by the 1.2 extended implementation. # 3 We need to make a plan what is to implement for 1.3 and make a tracking list of features and tests to implement. Any more Ideas? All the Best Peter On 09.02.20 12:28, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > Hello, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedro.l...@mailbox.org] >> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 11:51 AM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: New Challange ODF 1.3 is out >> >> Hi Peter, all >> >>> Just a heads up. On FOSDEM I learned that TDF managed to >> raise money and >>> do the work for ODF v 1.3. >> I believe this is a quite relevant announcement! >> >> If ODF 1.3 is only used by a single Office suite then it will >> no longer be "software independent" which IMHO defeats the >> purpose of an Open Document format... >> On the other hand given that ODF 1.3 is currently not an ISO >> standard, Microsoft will not care about it until it is (in >> fact they are making sure that ODF is not used at all) >> >> This will also isolate AOO since Open Documents will only >> travel in one direction without feature loss (much like what >> happens now with Microsoft's XML formats) > You described it very well. > > I myself have been following the development of ODF from the very beginning > and I have to underline what you write, or rather I have to take a critical > look at the approach of the TDF, because: > > In terms of a free, uniform format for office documents and the declared > intention to formulate this standard as an ISO standard, it is regularly > counterproductive for LO to deviate from this and implement OASIS standard. > > We all know what to think about MS in general ... but ... the approach of MS > to ODF to implement the ISO standard is an understandable and reasonable > decision. > > I make this assessment for the following reason: > if it wasn't important that ODF was defined as an ISO standard, you could > have stuck with the OASIS standard from the beginning. > > >> Maybe it is in OASIS' interest (and even TDF's?) that other >> software adopts ODF 1.3 and that they could/should provide >> some support/developer time? > Probably this is a pragmatically correct question and we have no real > possibility to behave better. > > However, we should keep in mind that the behaviour of the TDF is not optimal > as far as the interests of the sum of all users are concerned. > It is likely that MS is playing a similar game with OOXML, but the FOSS > community should not see this as an example or excuse for their own actions. > > > > greetings, > Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
