Das posições consistentemente equivocadas do Miguel de Icaza estamos
cansados de falar.
Quanto ao Mono eu acho que colocar o controle dos requerimentos do seu
projeto FLOSS nas mãos da entidade que mais quer causar danos à
comunidade não é inteligente.
Ele não é mais capaz de me surpreender.
Mono é legal - é bem pensado e bem executado - tem gente boa trabalhando
nele, mas é jogar o jogo do inimigo com as regras dele, no campo dele e
com a bola dele. Quando o time deles sair de campo e a bola começar a
fazer tique-taque, talvez seja meio tarde pra correr.
Começo a pensar se o Miguel pode ser mais um Rick Belluzzo em seus
estágios iniciais de desenvolvimento. Vai ser interessante observar.
Olival Gomes Barboza Júnior wrote:
O texto é relativamente longo, mas a leitura vale a pena. Destaco os
seguintes trechos (em uma tradução livre com minhas anotações entre
Sobre diferenças entre os padrões: " (. . .) as diferenças qualitativas
entre o OOXML e ODF são difíceis de articular. Não há nada
fundamentalmente melhor ou pior nesses padrões [ comparativamente ] (. .
Sobre o tamanho do documento da especificação: "Uma objeção comum ao [
formato ] OOXML é que sua especificação é "muito grande", que 6000
páginas é um demais para uma especificação e que isso impediria
terceiros de implementarem o suporte ao padrão. Considerando que por
anos nós, a comunidade open source, estamos tentando extrair tanta
informação sobre protocolos e formatos de arquivo da Microsoft, isso é
uma coisa boa [ o tamanho da especificação ]."
Sobre as críticas ao OOXML: "Algumas objeções ao OOXML se baseiam no
fato que ele [ o formato ] não utiliza padrões ISO já existentes ( . . .
). Eles [ um wiki que acompanha o OOXML ] listam 7 padrões ISO que OOXML
não usa ( . . .) Para efeitos de comparação, ODF apenas referencia 3
padrões ISO ( . . .)"
Sobre a "insuficiência" da especificação ODF: " ( . . . ) considerando
que é impossível implementar um programa de planilha eletrônica baseado
no ODF [ pela falta de informação relevante na especificação ] , estou
convencido que a análise realizada por aqueles se opondo ao OOXML é
incrivelmente superficial, a responsabilidade está com eles em provar
que o ODF é 'suficiente' para implementar do zero aplicações alternativas."
Sobre os pedidos de adiamento da aprovação do OOXML como padrão ISO:
"Considerando que o ODF ficou 1 ano sob escrutínio público e [ sua
especificação ] tem buracos do tamanho do Golfo do México, parece que o
pedido de adiamento de sua adoção [ do OOXML ] é baseada em razões
políticas, não em técnicas."
Finalizando: "Se todos reclamando do OOXML estivessem realmente
'hackeando' para aperfeiçoar o OpenOffice, tornando-o um produto
superior em todos os sentidos, nós não teríamos de recorrer, como uma
comunidade, a um argumento político sobre bases fracas."
Ele disse q está aceitando correções às informações em seu blog. Quem
achar q pode colaborar, siga o link no início da msg.
====== Segue cópia do texto no blog ========
The EU Prosecutors are Wrong.
from Miguel de Icaza by Miguel de Icaza ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The file format wars between Open Document Format (ODF) file format
against the Office Open XML (OOXML) are getting heated.
There are multiple discussions taking place and I have been ignoring it
for the most part.
This morning I read on News.com an interview with Thomas Vinje. Thomas
is part of the legal team representing some companies in the EU against
The bit in the interview that caught my attention was the following quote:
We filed our complaint with the Commission last February, over
Microsoft's refusal to disclose their Office file formats (.doc, .xls,
and .ppt), so it could be fully compatible and interoperable with
others' software, like Linux. We also had concerns with their
collaboration software with XP, e-mail software, and OS server software
and some media server software with their existing products. They use
their vast resources to delay things as long as possible and to wear
people down so they'll give up.
And in July, we updated our complaint to reflect our concerns with
Microsoft's "open XML." (Microsoft's Office Open XML is a default
document format for its Office 2007 suite.) And last month, we
supplemented that information with concerns we had for .Net 3.0
(software designed to allow Vista applications to run on XP and
older-generation operating systems).
And I think that the group is not only shooting themselves in the foot,
they are shooting all of our collective open source feet.
Open Source and Open Standards
For a few years, those of us advocating open source software have found
an interesting niche to push open source: the government niche.
The argument goes along these lines: Open Office is just as good as
Microsoft Office; Open Office is open source, so it comes for free; You
can actually nurture your economy if you push for a local open source
The argument makes perfect sense, most people with agree to it, but
every once in a while our advocacy has faced some problems: Microsoft
Office might have some features that we do not have, the cost of
migration is not zero, existing licensing deals sweeten the spot, and
there are compatibility corner cases that slow down the adoption.
A new powerful argument was identified a few years back, when
Congressman Edgar Villanueva in 2002 replied to a letter from
Microsoft's Peru General Manager.
One of the key components at the time was that the government would
provide free access to government information and the permanence of
public data. The letter those two points said:
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is
indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single
provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this
free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the
usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the
goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by
them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which
can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
The letter is a great document, but the bit that am interested in is the
bit about open standards.
Using Open Standards to Promote Open Source
Open standards and the need for public access to information was a
strong message. This became a key component of promoting open office,
and open source software. This posed two problems:
First, those promoting open standards did not stress the importance of
having a fully open source implementation of an office suite.
Second, it assumed that Microsoft would stand still and would not react
to this new change in the market.
And that is where the strategy to promote the open source office suite
is running into problems. Microsoft did not stand still. It reacted to
this new requirement by creating a file format of its own, the OOXML.
Technical Merits of OOXML and ODF
Unlike the XML Schema vs Relax NG discussion where the advantages of one
system over the other are very clear, the quality differences between
the OOXML and ODF markup are hard to articulate.
The high-level comparisons so far have focused on tiny details
(encoding, model used for the XML). There is nothing fundamentally
better or worse in those standards like there is between XML Schema and
ODF grew out of OpenOffice and is influenced by OpenOffice's internal
design. OOXML grew out of Microsoft Office and it is influenced by its
internal design. No real surprises there.
The Size of OOXML
A common objection to OOXML is that the specification is "too big", that
6,000 pages is a bit too much for a specification and that this would
prevent third parties from implementing support for the standard.
Considering that for years we, the open source community, have been
trying to extract as much information about protocols and file formats
from Microsoft, this is actually a good thing.
For example, many years ago, when I was working on Gnumeric, one of the
issues that we ran into was that the actual descriptions for functions
and formulas in Excel was not entirely accurate from the public books
you could buy.
OOXML devotes 324 pages of the standard to document the formulas and
The original submission to the ECMA TC45 working group did not have any
of this information. Jody Goldberg and Michael Meeks that represented
Novell at the TC45 requested the information and it eventually made it
into the standards. I consider this a win, and I consider those 324
extra pages a win for everyone (almost half the size of the ODF standard).
Depending on how you count, ODF has 4 to 10 pages devoted to it. There
is no way you could build a spreadsheet software based on this
To build a spreadsheet program based on ODF you would have to resort to
an existing implementation source code (OpenOffice, Gnumeric) or you
would have to resort to Microsoft's public documentation or ironically
to the OOXML specification.
The ODF Alliance in their OOXML Fact Sheet conveniently ignores this issue.
I guess the fairest thing that can be said about a spec that is 6,000
pages long is that printing it out kills too many trees.
There is a compilation being tracked in here, but some of the objections
there show that the people writing those objections do not understand
the issues involved.
Do as I say, not as I do
Some folks have been using a Wiki to keep track of the issues with
OOXML. The motivation for tracking these issues seems to be politically
inclined, but it manages to pack some important technical issues.
The site is worth exploring and some of the bits there are solid, but
there are also some flaky cases.
Some of the objections over OOXML are based around the fact that it does
not use existing ISO standards for some of the bits in it. They list 7
ISO standards that OOXML does not use: 8601 dates and times; 639 names
and languages; 8632 computer graphics and metafiles; 10118-3
cryptography as well as a handful of W3C standards.
By comparison, ODF only references three ISO standards: Relax NG (OOXML
also references this one), 639 (language codes) and 3166 (country codes).
Not only it is demanded that OOXML abide by more standards than ISO's
own ODF does, but also that the format used for metafiles from 1999 be
used. It seems like it would prevent some nice features developed in the
last 8 years for no other reason than "there was a standard for it".
ODF uses SMIL and SVG, but if you save a drawing done in a spreadsheet
it is not saved as SVG, it is saved using its own format (Chapter 9) and
sprinkles a handful of SVG attributes to store some information (x, y,
There is an important-sounding "Ecma 376 relies on undisclosed
information" section, but it is a weak case: The case is that Windows
Metafiles are not specified.
It is weak because the complain is that Windows Metafiles are not
specified. It is certainly not in the standard, but the information is
publicly available and is hardly "undisclosed information". I would vote
to add the information to the standard.
More on the Size of the Spec
A rough breakdown of OOXML:
~100 page "Fundamentals" document;
~200 page "Packaging Conventions" document;
~450 page "Primer" document (a tutorial);
~1850 page Word Processing reference document;
~1090 page Spreadsheet Processing reference document;
~270 page Presentation Processing reference document;
~1140 page Drawing Processing reference document;
~900 pages for other references (VML, SharedML,
~42 future extensibility document.
I have obviously not read the entire specification, and am biased
towards what I have seen in the spreadsheet angle. But considering that
it is impossible to implement a spreadsheet program based on ODF, am
convinced that the analysis done by those opposing OOXML is incredibly
shallow, the burden is on them to prove that ODF is "enough" to
implement from scratch alternative applications.
If Microsoft had produced 760 pages (the size of ODF) as the
documentation for the ".doc", ".xls" and ".ppt" that lacked for example
the formula specification, wouldn't people justly demand that the
specification was incomplete and was useless?
I would have to agree at that point with the EU that not enough
information was available to interoperate with Microsoft Office.
If anything, if I was trying to interoperate with Microsoft products, I
would request more, not less.
ODF is today an ISO standard. It spent some time in the public before it
was given its stamp of approval.
There is a good case to be made for OOXML to be further fine-tuned
before it becomes an ISO standard. But considering that Office 2007 has
shipped, I doubt that any significant changes to the file format would
be implemented in the short or medium term.
The best possible outcome in delaying the stamp of approval for OOXML
would be to get further clarifications on the standard. Delaying it on
the grounds of technical limitations is not going to help much.
Considering that ODF spent a year receiving public scrutiny and it has
holes the size of Gulf of Mexico, it seems that the call for delaying
its adoption is politically based and not technically based.
XAML and .NET 3.0
From another press release from the group:
"Vista is the first step in Microsoft‘s strategy to extend its market
dominance to the Internet," Awde stressed. For example, Microsoft's
"XAML" markup language, positioned to replace HTML (the current industry
standard for publishing language on the Internet), is designed from the
ground up to be dependent on Windows, and thus is not cross-platform by
"With XAML and OOXML Microsoft seeks to impose its own Windows-dependent
standards and displace existing open cross-platform standards which have
wide industry acceptance, permit open competition and promote
competition-driven innovation. The end result will be the continued
absence of any real consumer choice, years of waiting for Microsoft to
improve - or even debug - its monopoly products, and of course high
prices," said Thomas Vinje, counsel to ECIS and spokesman on the issue.
He is correct that XAML/WPF will likely be adopted by many developers
and probably some developers will pick it over HTML development.
I would support and applaud his efforts to require the licensing of the
XAML/WPF specification under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise.
But he is wrong about XAML/WPF being inherently tied to Windows.
XAML/WPF are large bodies of code, but they expose fewer dependencies on
the underlying operating system than .NET 2.0's Windows.Forms API does.
It is within our reach to bring to Linux and MacOS.
We should be able to compete on technical grounds with Microsoft's
offerings. Developers interested in brining XAML/WPF can join the Mono
project, we have some bits and pieces implemented as part of our Olive
I do not know how fast the adoption of XAML/WPF will be, considering
that unlike previous iterations of .NET, gradual adoption of WPF is not
possible. Unlike .NET 2.0 which was an incremental upgrade for
developers, XAML/WPF requires software to be rewritten to take advantage
The Real Problem
The real challenge today that open source faces in the office space is
that some administrations might choose to move from the binary office
formats to the OOXML formats and that "open standards" will not play a
role in promoting OpenOffice.Org nor open source.
What is worse is that even if people manage to stop OOXML from becoming
an ISO standard it will be an ephemeral victory.
We need to recognize that this is the problem. Instead of trying to bury
OOXML, which amounts to covering the sun with your finger.
We need to make sure that OpenOffice can thrive on its technical grounds.
This is not a complete study of the problems that OOXML has, as I said,
it has its share of issues. But it has its share of issues just like the
current ODF standard has.
To make ODF successful, we need to make OpenOffice a better product, and
we need to keep improving it. It is very easy to nitpick a standard,
specially one that is as big as OOXML. But it is a lot harder to
actually improve OpenOffice.
If everyone complaining about OOXML was actually hacking on improving
OpenOffice to make it a technically superior product in every sense we
would not have to resort, as a community, to play a political case on
I also plan on updating this blog entry as people correct me (unlike
ODF, my blog entries actually contain mistakes ;-)
PSL-Brasil mailing list
Regras da lista:
PSL-Brasil mailing list
Regras da lista: