Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 3

message: Better one is this one. But it's deep alpha:
When will there be something available to download?
The first versions of the Perl server components should be available in a couple of weeks.
With a working server, our hope is that means a usable plugin in less than a month.
Update: A couple of news reports have suggested or implied (incorrectly) that a plugin has already been completed. This is not the case.
--jno 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to converter 

message: I nominated this article as failing to meet Quality Standards.--- First, let me state that I hate MSOffice, actually use OpenOffice, and just recently backed up most of my stuff in ODFormats (no more suffering for having to upgrade MSWord.--- Nonetheless, I think this article features MS's failures too heavily, and seems like a promo for OpenDocument.--- Move on and stop talking about MSOffice. If you want to follow the controversy, read Wikinews.--- Louie 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the whole section on Public Policy may go the way of the dodo. Louie 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page looks like advertising---Stop talking about MSOffice! 

message: I did some major surgery to fix the advertising tone of this article, so I may remove the advert tag soon. Removed some sections I deem as unencyclopedic (and references to other articles, which I accordingly tagged as unencyclopedic). Now it seems that it is only matter of merging external articles that got splitted up in a previous attempt to fit article size into reasonable terms.--- Louie 21:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished the job by adding sub-articles, instead of full merges, and fixed the corresponding links. Louie 00:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul dated 5/29/2006 

message: Hello!--- I think lots of controversial, quasi-advertising material may go into an article OpenDocument/Controversy. This is to preserve a lot of people's work somewhere. Louie 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenDocument/Controversy sub-article? 

message: During rewrites/moves, please remember that other sites and search engines link to these pages and to their subtopics. If you are going to make changes in page titles, combine pages, etc., please heed the Wikipedia guidance on Redirection, in particular the topic on Renamings and merges. Pages should be redirected rather than retitled. OpenDocument is an ongoing hot topic for many, with megabucks hanging in the balance. There will be lots of revisions in these pages. Every time information is retitled (even in subtopics) or moved, links are broken on other sites. 
So please, do not retitle pages. If you are unwilling to do the work of redirecting to a new page with the new title, you should find someone who is willing to do the work. And please bear in mind that rewriting subheadings breaks links on other sites too. Try to avoid rewriting or removing them unless it is truly important. 
Those pages that have been retitled need to be recreated as redirection pages. I hope those that did the retitling will do the work.
P.S. I'm here because links I maintain on other sites to these pages were broken. It's a lot of work to update all of them every time someone goes into a refactoring frenzy here, which happens all too often in this category. Many times, I cannot repair the damage because the links were created in fora where my editing rights have expired. -- Marbux 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider those linking from external sites 

message: The article claims: "ODF will be the standard document format for the United States government as of 1 January 2007". I haven't read that anywhere else and I believe that it is untrue. Does anyone have a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonL (talk • contribs) .
:I removed it... it's a pretty big claim to make without a reliable source to back it up.  -/- Warren 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like the right thing to do. --JonL 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: January 7, 2007 is the date that it becomes the standard document format for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Branch, assuming no unannounced delays. I suspect it was a misunderstanding or a lack of mastery over the English language. Marbux 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Government Standard 

message: I have sincere problems with the citation of Zaske’s Blog for the sentence: "A possible problem is that the current ODF implementations of OpenOffice.org and KOffice are not compatible [3].". Since in his blog he based his discussion on the (already cited [4]) http://opendocumentfellowship.org/applications/koffice . Why not only cite the last reference without including this blog, which is in my opinion too much of a sensationalist article based on current premature implementations? - Arthur
: I added the page to zaske's blog as he give examples for the incompatibility and show that even official documents created by the OASIS foudation itself get completly manged when editted in the three different implementations. The openfellowship page just makes a small not that there might be incompetabilities not stating which incompetabilities nor the seriousness of these incompetabilities.If any link to remove than the Opendocumentfellowship links as they do not indicate the lack of competability between Office implementations to be a serieus issue at all. 
: There is page on the Opendocument fellowship rating the applications and for instance giving kOffice a 4 star rating even though it severely mangles OOo created documents. The koffice page states: Our tests show that OpenOffice and KOffice have some problems opening each other's OpenDocument files. This seems a severe understatement especially when you edit the documents. I do have some objections to the Zaske blog as it is a Microsft guy that should be consideredd biased against ODF but at least his findings are objectivly repeatable for everybody. Also it balances the info links by the opendocumentfellowship that is biased the other way. I suggest replacing either of the biased links only if a more objective source writes an article about the subject of exchanging ODF documents between the supporting application hAl 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenDocument Fellowship Quietly Admits OpenDocument Implementation Flaws