Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 2

message: Somebody added NeoOffice/J to the list of applications supporting OpenDocument. I believe the latest NeoOffice/J is based on OOo 1.1.4 but that OOo 1.1.5 was the first to support OpenDocument. Could a Mac user confirm whether or not NeoOffice/J currently includes the support? I know they plan to release a new one based on OOo 2.0, so maybe they should be mentioned in a paragraph ala WordPerfect. IEdML 15:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's not supported yet, Patrick is working on it. I removed the reference. Webmink 17:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one who added that text; I didn't realize that NeoOffice was based on 1.1.4 instead of 1.1.5.  Thanks for fixing that! --bdesham 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've (re-)added NeoOffice.  As of 1.2 alpha it's based on 1.1.5 so supports reading OpenDocument.  The alpha release is pretty stable but I've noted it's status in the list.  Barefootguru 20:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NeoOffice/J 

message: I added links in the "See also" section for two articles that I started:
* List of applications supporting OpenDocument
* Comparison of applications supporting OpenDocument
The second one is definitely something new, but the first one to some extent redoes, in a different way, the section on applications in this article.
My intent with both of these was to document exactly which applications are seriously out there for people who want to use (or are required by government/corporate policies to use) OpenDocument. That's why I divided it into the different types of OpenDocument formats, and also separated word processors from other types of compatible applications. I didn't carry over the links to applications that aren't important enough to have Wikipedia articles. ;) Also the WordPerfect and Massachusetts discussion, while good, wouldn't fit into the "List" concept.
I don't think it would be a problem to keep this article unedited and also offer the List and the Comparison. But I do just want to put that out there, see what others think.
--IEdML 01:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I think this is a good idea. People are complaining about the length of the main article (which I don't find to be that much of a problem, but I'll grant them that it is long) and this would be a good way to move some sections out and make them more accessible. Also, I think there are many times when people out on the 'net would want to link to or otherwise reference a list of supported applications, and it's handier to have it in a separate article than to have to link to an anchor in a much longer main document. I would support removing the list of applications from the main article and replacing them with a link to the separate doc, if there was a consensus on it. -- Kadin2048 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: I'm interested in contributing some discussion of legal issues related to OpenDocument adoption. But it is a topic that could mushroom as others contribute to it, raising laws in particular countries. So I'm looking for feedback on whether to start it on this page or to start a new linked page, and if the latter, where. 
I planned to begin by summarizing the international Agreement on Government Procurement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. E-SIGN Act, and the uniform state statute implementing E-SIGN. 
The text might be framed only as it applies to OpenDocument, but I thought it might be more useful if it were designed as a work applicable to file formats and streaming media formats in general. 
I'll try to check back at least every couple of days this week. Tnx. --Marbux —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbux (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 October 2005
: Those all sound like they apply more broadly to open formats / open standards in general, rather than OpenDocument specifically.  I would do that broadly, say as part of those more general articles, and then add a note (with link) from the OpenDocument article to it.  That sounds like very interesting information and worthy of inclusion. I know that the international Agreement on Government Procurement's relationship needs to be documented, for sure. -- Dwheeler 06:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related legal information 

message: The section Format Internals contains quite a bit of incorect information. Most of it seems to be based on what OOo uses, but this is not actually part of the spec. I have included the relevent portions below.
An OpenDocument file is a JAR compressed archive containing a number of files and directories.  This simple compression mechanism means that OpenDocument files are normally significantly smaller than equivalent Microsoft ".doc" or ".ppt" files.  This smaller size is important for organizations who store a vast number of documents for long periods of time, and to organizations those who must exchange documents over low bandwidth connections.  Once uncompressed, most data is contained in simple text-based XML files, so the data contents (once uncompressed) have the typical ease of modification and processing of XML files.
The problem is that there is no mention of the xml-only file format as is noted in section 2.1 of the spec:
The OpenDocument format supports the following two ways of document representation:
* As a single XML document.
* As a collection of several subdocuments within a package (see section 17), each of which stores part of the complete document. Each subdocument has a different document root and stores a particular aspect of the XML document. For example, one subdocument contains the style information and another subdocument contains the content of the document. All types of documents, for example, text and spreadsheet documents, use the same document and subdocuments definitions.
 The zipped set of files and directories includes the following:
 SNIP
 * Other files
 ** mimetype
 ** layout-cache
 * Directories
 ** META-INF/
 ** Thumbnails/
 ** Pictures/
 ** Configurations2/
Problems here include: layout-cache, which is not part of the spec and is probably OOo specific; Pictures/, which is just a convention as this name is not mandated by the spec; and /Configurations2, which is also not mentioned by the spec and is probabaly OOo specific.
 ===Pictures/===
 Pictures/ is a folder containing all images in the document. They are refered to from
 content.xml using a <draw:image> tag, similar to the HTML <img> tag:
 
  <draw:image   
      xlink:href="Pictures/10000000000005E80000049F21F631AB.tif"
      xlink:type="simple" xlink:show="embed"
      xlink:actuate="onLoad"/>
 
 The layout information (width, anchor, etc) is provided by a <draw:frame> tag that contains
 the <draw:image> tag.
 
 Most images are kept in their original format (GIF, JPEG, PNG) but bitmap images are converted
 to PNG for size considerations.
Here the problems are the fact that Pictures/ is juts a convention, not part of the spec, and that last senence is almost certainly [OOo]] specific. I see nothing in the spec that prevents plain Windows bitmaps, or xbm's. Tacvek 21:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information in ==Format internals== 

message: I would like to help edit this article with respect to issues of disability rights (and lack of sufficient support for people with disabilities in OpenDocument applications.)   I am also willing to do general refactoring.  How should I start? --ASW 16:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just passing though: couldn't the sections on disability be moved to another article, "Disability in Computing" or "Disability in Desktop Applications" or something?  bodhidharma 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help refactoring & disability rights 

message: There was a listing in the Applications supporting OpenDocument section for a program called "Apple OneNote" which as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. The link from OneNote goes to Microsoft OneNote, and searching on Google for Apple OneNote didn't turn up any hints of a similar piece of software under the same name (that would be a pretty long shot anyway). Therefore I changed "Apple" to "Microsoft" in a minor edit a few minutes ago. However, there is still a problem -- I can't find any evidence that MS's OneNote supports ODF; absent of any evidence I think it should probably be removed from the list. From a personal standpoint I doubt greatly that it supports the format. -- Kadin2048 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OneNote 

message: I have created three new entries OpenDocument technical specifications, Applications supporting OpenDocument and Accessibility in OpenDocument, the Reference section is still very long and needs to be splitted between the new entries too. I have also created a new category :Category:OpenDocument --Khalid hassani 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry splitted and creation of a new Category