Talk:Comparison of Office Open XML and OpenDocument

Big problem with this article

It compares (in its central table) ODF with OOXML - but there are at least three distinct versions of each of these specs. If this article is to be of use, some way needs to be found to distinguish exactly which versions are being compared. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I specified ODF 1.0 and the ECMA standard of OOXML, which are the ones that correspond to the values in the table (as far as I know) Yannh (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

HAL: could you precise why you keep removing the versions of the file format we are comparing? I agree with Alexbrn that it doesn't make much sense if we do not precise which versions of the formats are being compared Yannh (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

SVG in ODF ?

The table suggest ODF uses SVG but this is not correct. ODF uses some sort of ODF particular SVG variant and some additional 3d draw elements. hAl (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and fix it. :) Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ODF container

As far as I understand it is close to the Java archive format (JAR). Mayby JAR-like would be a reasonalbe description ?

Yeah, I think you're correct. Go ahead and fix it. :) Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ISO 29500 compatibility and Microsoft Office 2007

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx

"In addition, Microsoft has defined a road map for its implementation of the newly ratified International Standard ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML). IS29500, which was approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in March, is already substantially supported in Office 2007, and the company plans to update that support in the next major version release of the Microsoft Office system, code-named ?Office 14.? "

Substantially supported is not supported.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Protocols+and+Standards&articleId=9089258&taxonomyId=141&pageNumber=1

"Changes were made to Office Open XML between Ecma International's approval of the file format as a standard a year and a half ago and the ISO standards body's ratification of it this spring. Microsoft Corp. won't support the ISO version of its own format until Office 14 arrives around the end of 2009."

Nobody claims that Microsoft Office supports ISO/IEC IS 29500 yet. Though it might be the case that documents conforming to the ECMA 376 1^st edition standard are also conforming to ISO/IEC IS 29500 (ECMA 376 2^nd edition) because the latter specifies six levels of document and application conformance, strict and transitional for each of WordprocessingML, PresentationML and SpreadsheetML. However, whether you like it our not Microsoft Office still supports Office Open XML.

Please sign your posts in the future. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I have kept your notes on this then, and specified the versions we are comparing. I believe the previous table was implying that microsoft office was supporting the ISO standard. How about separating adding a column for the ISO recognised OOXML, and for ODF 1.2? Yannh (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Implementations covered by patent license

This doesn't seem correct? According to this: http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-10-04-a.html#nonAssert :

"Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 ."

It seems that Sun Microsystems isn't the only one who owns interlectual property rights for OpenDocument. IBM's Interoperability Specifications Pledge states that: [1]

"Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification. Reference to IBM (or you) includes entities controlled by, controlling, and under common control with IBM (or you), based on majority control.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ODF fonts and PANOSE

In ODF it's possible to use font face declarations. And panose is mentioned as one of the attributes names! Does this mean that ODF does support panose font specification?

Quote: The declarations directly correspond to the @font-face font description of CSS2 and the elements of [SVG] but have two extensions. The article should add in the PANOSE row, ODF column that ODF uses font face elements from svg.

Directly copied from OpenDocument-v1.1.odt (downloaded from OASIS: http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1.odt)

        <optional><br />
		<attribute name="svg:panose-1"/><br />
	</optional>

Copyright: I have the right to copy:

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works.

ODF signatures

According to this http://blogs.sun.com/dancer/entry/dispelling_myths_around_odf , ODF 1.2 supports digital signatures - are we comparing specific versions of ODF and OOXML? Maybe we hould add a table ODF 1.0, 1.1, 1.2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannh (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK ODF 1.2 is nothing more than a draft specification, it is not even an OASIS standard. Since OpenOffice.org's default format is infact an implementation of the ODF 1.2 draft, one might argue that the current version of OpenOffice.org doesn't even use an open standard file format by default. Oh, and btw. if there are really no row/column limitations in the ODF specification, then this means that no version of OpenOffice.org fully conforms to this specification, because all OpenOffice.org versions have row/column limitations.[2] Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that MS Word saves in the ecma standardized version of OOXML which is not ISO - and has actually never used an open standard in the past... And again according to this link : http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx , even the latest version of MS Office doesn't support the ISO standard.... Yannh (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Ecma 376 standards is nearly identical ISO/IEC 29500 transitonal. So implementation of Ecma 376 implies that ISO/IEC 29500 transitional is supported. The Ecma 376 version is at the moment the most used version as is the OASIS ODF 1.1 version for ODF. hAl (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hal, agreed, but - Openoffice supports ODF 1.0 (iso) although even microsoft recognizes that they do not support the openxml ISO standard ? This is the cause of my edits Yannh (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to this article. It is about the format and support for it. Not about what version which in both formats is rather complex. hAl (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying it is irrelevant which version of the format we are speaking of? But you add several points that vary from version to version - for example signatures are supported in ODF 1.2. I second AlexBrn in his very first comment on that page that we should precise which versions we are talking about. Yannh (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In the context of popular support in the long run the most popular editor will generally support the most popular version of a format. hAl (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Most popular editor

I have changed this to a plural, as there are quite a few editors for ODF (just cited the most populars though). Is there any reason why we should list only one? Saying that Openoffice is "the most popular" seems subjective to me and lacks sources... Yannh (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you back up the suggested popularity of MS Office, KOffice and Lotus notus for editing ODF files with any sources ? I personally have never come across ODF files from any of those three suites in the wild. Most likely OOo is number one and way way way behind that is Google apps. hAl (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few success stories for Lotus Notes here: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/topstoriesFM?OpenForm&Site=lotus&cty=en_us Yannh (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not doubt the Notes product can be succesfull but I think that Lotus notes is often used with defualt support for the old binary ms office files rather than ODF. The link you provide deos not give any indication on use of ODF. Is there support for it being a succesfull ODF editer ? hAl (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I bet my relatives don't count :) What makes you think it is used mainly with support for the old binary ms office? Yannh (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think using the plural version is a bad idea. How do we decide what is popular enough the be in such a list and what is not? It should be fairly easy to find out which application is the most popular and has the biggest market share. If we don't have any restriction here, people are going to add more and more of their favourite editors/viewers to this list that are "somewhat popular" in their opinion. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any good reason for listing only one (as there is actually no full implementation of the ISO OOXML - although there are plenty that support ODF 1.0) . On the other hand - I am unsure about the list of features that you added to the table to make OOXML green and ODF red are very relevant - could you explain why you think they are relevant? Because if we start an in depth features review that goes as deep as signatures, that table might get pretty long. Yannh (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if there are full implementations of the ISO/IEC IS 29500:2008 just as it does not matter if there are full implementations of ODF 1.2. This article is a comparision of Office Open XML and OpenDocument. There are several versions of both standards. I think that mentioning the most popular editor/viewer for each format is useful for the reader that might want to edit/view such documents. Since we can never include all applications that support these formats, I think it is fair to only add one for each format with the biggest market share. Regarding the features I added, I think these are relevant for this comparision, because they are widely used among users of office suites. People should be aware of the limitations of a document file format. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It does matter completely on the opposite. If someone wants to use a software that will save files in an ISO standard, this table gives the incorrect information that MS Office will allow him to save in the ISO version of OOXML which is incorrect. Yannh (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you are reading, but this page does not suggest that Microsoft Office supports the ISO standard. This is not a simple comparision of ISO formats. This article compares two popular document formats of which certain versions have been standardized by ISO. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This contradicts your very own changes: "no released ODF standard defines digital signatures". ODF 1.2 suppots digital signatures, although not standardized by ISO - but if we compare only the formats and not the ISO standards, then there is no reason to mark that ODF doesn't support signatures. Yannh (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The big difference is that ODF 1.2 has been standardized by nobody yet. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Change-tracking in equations

This seems a bit restricted as a feature ODF does support limited change tracking. But for instance not in tables and not in math equations.21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This article is biased towards OpenOffice XML. Some editors have added secondary elements to the comparison that exist in OpenXML and not in ODF - although they are not very relevant - and a discussable colour scheme to make ODF appear in a bad light. The versions compared are not specified, although several people have asked for it - and changes in that direction have been reverted. The people doing these reverts seem to be involved in many edit wars, all related to ODF and OOXML.

To solve the dispute, I propose that:

• we clarify which versions are being compared, and mention it clearly on the page
• we discuss which characteristics of the formats are most relevant (and *not* try to put everything that one has and the other hasn't)

Yannh (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. A standard spreadsheet formula language, change tracking in equations, digital signatures are not very relevant? I suppose this is because no stable and standardized ODF version supports it yet. And I suppose this is the reason why you keep removing them. Why do you add a point of view warning banner on the top of the page when it does not contain any points of view. These are all facts that everybody can check on the web. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, change tracking in equations is a very specific feature that is not implemented in ODF. I do not believe that this makes ODF a worse format, though, although this is what you are trying to show. You just picked 2 or 3 features that ODF doesn't have and a colour scheme to make ODF seem like an inferior format. You reverted all my edits trying to show that OOXML (ISO) isn't supported by any single software - I believe this should actually be pointed out. The choice of the information along with the regular tries to make people think that MS Office supports the ISO version of OOXML are the reason for the banner. Yannh (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Nobody is trying to show that ODF is a worse format. The used color scheme is a standard Wikipedia color sheme that is used on all kinds of articles with comparisons (see: Category:Software comparisons). I don't know why you are so determined to show that a specific office suite does not support a specific version of one of the two file formats yet. I think by adding a genreal row for application support we can provide the reader with a much broader picture without promoting any specific applications. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The bias seems clear to me. Certainly other criteria would show ODF in a better light, such as whether source is available for a reference implementation, whether the reference implementation was updated to track the standard as it was developed, what groups participated in developing the format, what conformance tests are available, what applications fully implement the standard (at 90% pass rate on conformance tests for example) and what OS platforms they run on. Other useful (but more neutral) information is simply overlooked, such as what document types are supported, what (human) languages are supported, etc. I would like to see many more suggestions about features and characteristics to compare, as well as explanations about why they are important. Johnmorgan (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting the format is better not because of the format but because of an implementations that used the format ? Actually your suggestion on conformance tests for the standard being available I think is very viable. I would not mind you adding this to this article. (as long as these are truly independent tests or for instance tests maintained by a standardization organization). I do not understand your suggestion on what languages are supported pertaining to the format. hAl (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately users can't use a document format by itself; they are limited to using implementations. This means that the available choice of implementations (including what is implemented and how well) is absolutely important. While it is important that a standard be correct, complete, coherent and comprehensible that isn't enough if all the implementations suck. In addition, the implementations reflect the quality of the standard. If the standard is ambiguous or incomprehensible the implementations won't interoperate well. If the standard is well written then there will likely be a variety of implementations that work well together.

I don't understand what type of tests you would object to. Even if a particular implementer develops a conformance suite it should still be testing the standard in some meaningful way. The benefit to them is that they can correct their implementation more quickly than their competitors, but that's a very temporary advantage. The other type of tests that each implementer should have are bug tests that are developed from failures that they found, but those aren't usually useful as conformance tests. Some indicators of quality for a test suite are the number of tests, the number of features tested and how widely it is used.

Conformance tests for a document format should fall into two broad categories: reading and writing. Both are by nature limited. Reading tests challenge an implementation with a variety of pre-created documents that conform to the standard and demonstrate aspects and alternatives in the standard. Of course no set of test documents can test all possible combinations of document features. Writing tests are even more problematic because the resulting document must be evaluated. Usually this degenerates into interoperability tests because the standard is rarely presented in a formal grammar that can be automatically checked.

Because human languages are written in many different ways (primary and secondary flow, combined glyphs, etc.) a document format can't just assume a linear glyph stream. Both ODF and OOXML were developed based on extensive experience with non-Latin languages, but it would be interesting to compare features for handling this. Johnmorgan (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

MS articles (camouflaged as unbiased by the term open) are biased towards MS products. The MS Axis has the money to pay people for good press, and edit freely "Open" references as an authority (a small marketing fib). The MS bias/edit/spin is creeping across Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo... reminding me of the Chaney-Bush, congress, and staffers editing Wikipedia and blogs/news over the past ~decade to market false dogma to the dogma-hoards.

This is not the only act of corporate/government product-bias, there are many on Wikipedia and across the Internet. Global Gov/Biz hype/spin is becoming the accessible faux-truth hiding or obscuring any "Open" products/Methods/Models in the news and across most common portals of the Internet.

MS-OOXML... (ain't an "Open" standard) and others in industry want entrapped customer-communities, I suspect this purpose. Interoperability (hardware, software, apps, services, sharing...) with international public/business communities does not provide many legacy-economics companies with sustainable business models. Over the past four years Biz/Gov has become confused at best or intentionally false in (to me/IMO) discussing "Open" architecture, standards, software, office/mass-media formats....

I guess, it is always legal to aptly obscure the "Open" General Public TradeMark value (like MadeInUSA) to oppress/misrepresent competition, services/products, and defame valuable industry reputations involved in using/developing "Open" Businesses/Products/services.

Anyway, it appears to me (I could be wrong) to be happening. Businesses continue to ask for protectionist-welfare laws and checks with faux-truth Voices for politics and business on Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo.... I have no idea how to prove that intentional manipulation of data/content is happening for sustaining big-business anti-capitalism. I recommend tossing into the bit-bucket this article, other B$-OOXMLike materials, and reinitializing all references that pseudo-obsequiously slander "Open" Industry Market Sector businesses, products, services....oh21 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.8.13 (talk)

Well, after reading the five paragraphs by 192.172.8.13 and seeing how he is the one to add the neutrality tag, I think it is safe to remove the neutrality tag based on 192.172.8.13's neutrality. How someone goes from "corporate/government product-bias" to "faux-truth Voices for politics and business" using words like "B$-OOXMLike" indicates that he should have his section removed until (1) a qualifying link (other than from a tech news-ish blog site) or (2) he reformulates his wording in a comprehensible manner. Agreed? User:cksgk8 —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

The "Application Support" and "Implemented" rows seem redundant in purpose.

Unless there's a compelling discussion here to the contrary, I intend to merge them. Petershank (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, with something you wrote 9 years ago anyway. I deleted the row. 12think (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Example document or snippets?

An article named "Comparison…" should contain examples of the things it compares with each other. So in this case: It would be helpful for a comparison of these 2 formats if this article contains a minimalistic example document or at least some "snippets" to see how certain features are written in ODF and OOXML.

I found these things ad hoc:

• http://freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/odf_ooxml_technical_white_paper/

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251979512_Comparison_of_Wordprocessing_Document_Format_in_OOXML_and_ODF

-RokerHRO (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)