Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 4

message: Is www.spreadopendocument.org an organisation ??? It just looks like a links site by an individual OpenDocument fan. Site seems relevant for the article as it is a nicely setup links info site but preferbly this should not be listed as an organisation.hAl 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisations 

message: What are OD's mime types? Could they be added to the article somewhere? --Mecanismo | Talk 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They would belong in this article: OpenDocument technical specification hAl 11:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenDocument mime types? 

message: I've seen OpenDocument Master or ODM file types on the web and in the Open dialog of OOo; however I have no clue what it is good for, nor does it appear here. If anyone knows, add it in!+mwtoews 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing OpenDocument Master 

message: It would be intersting to see more about how these formats were researched and developed.  What kinds of studies were done?  Was their design just guided by the Microsoft formats, or was there an effort to develope office productivity tools and formats from scratch without considering the structure of commercial software? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R&D History 

message: Link to Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats, in see other and  keep it out of this article. Charles Esson 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So be bold and fix it! Sdedeo (tips) 05:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of appearance of conflict of interest I will put up issues first on the talk page then make the changes a couple of days later if there are no objections.Rick Jelliffe 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Rick -- I inputted the changes myself -- thanks for pointing them out! For future reference you can, of course, just edit the text yourself -- no priviledged user status necessary. Sdedeo (tips) 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I understand your reticence -- you're "that dude." My guess is that now thing have calmed down you can just merge into the usual wikiperson stream -- and if it counts, I as a long-term user (since 2005) see no problem with it. "Interested" users contribute all the time, and there is even a "bounties" project where people can offer monetary rewards for improving an article. Further, I don't think it's a problem if you want to create a new username that preserves your anonymity (may I suggest FrogHackerD00m?) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, imagine all the fuss if I did that! The idea is to increase focus, not provide more opportunities for accusation, spin and FUD. Rick Jelliffe 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Pedant is my middle name (However 'Incorrect' is my first), but surely the string "ISO/IEC 26300:2006" is not a number (unless you are using strange definition of number, and surreal number is taken) - perhaps a better term would be "under the designation "ISO/IEC 26300:2006"? WLDtalk|edits 11:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Rick -- thanks for your suggestions, but I think someone else can be your secretary from here on out! Sdedeo (tips) 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: As I did last week with the OOXML article, I've done a review of the ODF article for your consideration and posted it on my [blog].  I am a member of the OASIS ODF TC, JTC1/SC34, work on various ODF topics at IBM and have spoken at several conferences on ODF topics.  So I have expertize in the subject matter.  But out of abundance of caution, and respecting Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, I am refraining from editing the article directly.
Thanks!
RCWeir 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to repeat myself, but good faith edits are always appreciated. It's far more likely your work will improve the article if you edit it yourself and engage people in direct debate on the talk page if there are disagreements. Sdedeo (tips) 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We judge COI, not you. And being an expert is never a COI. Make an edit. Talk to people on the talk page. Cite reliable published sources. Accept that other's opinions count as much as yours. Play well with others and you will find wikipedia fun and inviting. Don't expect us to waste our time editing for you - if the page's main authors agree with what you say about the page then edit the page to reflect that. If you are reverted, then take it to the take page. If you are accused of bias or conflict of interest THEN taking it off wikipedia as you did is the right thing to do. Premature self-eviction I think. WAS 4.250 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rob Weir's suggestions

message: I have insufficient knowledge to determine if ODF as described in the ISO standard is sufficiently rich to describe drawings (akin to those produced by Visio). Can anyone comment? WLDtalk|edits 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure. I actually think I have seem references on ODF where is says a drawing method is compared to SVG (without mentioning which SVG exact version) so it should be simular to the SVG capabilities I guess. hAl 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I think there are two questions here. As far as I can tell, ODF 1.0 (the ISO standard) has some limitations and possibly may not allow the inclusion of arbitrary (maybe binary) elements; whereas ODF 1.2 (which is not an ISO standard) does/will do.  To that extent, any format is ODF compatible, as a binary element can be included that can be interpreted by a specially written application - that is, ODF is just acting as a container or bucket. Now that is not the intention that many people want - they want the standard elements themselves to be sufficient to describe a document.  To that end, I'm not sure that ODF 1.0 is sufficient to describe documents produced from Microsoft Visio. Different versions of Visio use different methods to describe arbitrary lines: the most recent uses Nonuniform rational B-splines (NURBS); older versions use elliptical arcs. Some applications use a subset of NURBS, usually called Bézier curves or splines.  The end result of this is that ODF may not provide for 'perfect fidelity' when a convertor converts from some other document format into ODF version <whatever> and return.  As I say, I don't know enough to tell for sure, but I do know that using different methods to attempt to describe the same thing can cause nasty problems. I hope an expert will be along in due course! WLDtalk|edits 11:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ODF compared to DrawingML