Open Document Format 1.2 Published As ISO/IEC Standard 42
jrepin writes: The Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF) Version 1.2, the native file format of LibreOffice and many other office applications, has been published as International Standard 26300:2015 by ISO/IEC. ODF defines a technical schema for office documents including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical documents like drawings or presentations. The current version of the standard was published in 2011, and then was submitted to ISO/IEC in 2014.
Is ISO even relevant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who really cares about this? After the last document format ISO approved [slashdot.org] does anybody actually care even in the slightest if a document is part of an ISO standard or not?
ODF was a published format, what benefit does it bring to have an ISO number next to it?
Re:Is ISO even relevant? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
"For one, a lot of corporations and governments won't use formats that aren't approved by a standards body."
Which is the precise reason why a lot of shady shit went on that got that Other Document approved despite the fact that even Microsoft wasn't able to implement their "open standard". Have they EVER managed to implement it?
Re: (Score:3)
That is a load of crap. The most popular and widely used formats don't have approval from standards bodies. Heck the most popular and widely used formats aren't even open.
Re:Is ISO even relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but in most of those cases it's because:
a) There are NO standard format in that particular field, only a bunch of competing (open/closed) formats (see for example the current mess of IM).
b) Such a standard exists, but didn't for a very long time which created a non-standard legacy mess that needs to be cleaned up by someone.
Re: (Score:2)
a) There are NO standard format in that particular field, only a bunch of competing (open/closed) formats (see for example the current mess of IM).
I'm not sure that is the best example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it *is* a great example, because you still have four isolated islands (+ a bunch of smaller ones) of Facebook, Skype, Google, rest of XMPP network not talking to each other (Google refuse to implement S2S encryption on their servers, making it incompatible with rest of XMPP network). So yes it is indeed a non-standard mess, even though open standards exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not what GP said.
His argument was explicitly that no open standard existed within the field. Given that there is a perfectly good open standard in the field he explicitly mentioned, it is a terrible example.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what you call a standard then.
Would you say Skype is an industry standard when it comes to IM?
No? Why not?
And then the second question; if Skype with its millions of users is not a standard, then why is XMPP with one quarter of Skypes userbase considered a standard? An open protocol, sure, but an actual standard?
It only becomes a standard if most people are already using it (de-facto) or if a body with big enough authority blesses it and push for it's implementation (de-jure). XMPP is not de
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, you yourself said:
"So yes it is indeed a non-standard mess, even though open standards exist [in the field of IM]."
Secondly, in your pursuit of not wanting to admit to having provided a meager example, you are bending your logic to this (reread the posts and you'll see):
"The most popular and widely used formats don't have approval from standards bodies and the most popular and widely used formats aren't even open
Because
There is NO format approved by a standards body (de-jure) or a widely used forma
Re:Is ISO even relevant? (Score:4, Insightful)
+1 to parent.
I hate to be seen as invoking the name "Microsoft" even though it is not in the article, but illustrates the point made by the parent: MS fully understands the attention an ISO number brings. POSIX compatibility in WinNT was merely lip-service to US government procurement rules, at least to me. Same with MSOOXML. "Standards compliance" in these two examples are very clearly considered a reluctant burden rather than a sincere effort to being interoperativity.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it isn't. And I agree with what you said.
ISO should be more discriminating about what standards are instead of awarding numbers to paying customers.
Several years ago, my company got sold a broken LCD monitor. It was important to us because it went to our graphics department. When we complained, their reply was because only couple leds malfunctioned and according to ISO blabla#000134 it needs 7 leds (or something like that) to malfunction to define a monitor as "defective". Never looked at the real "stan
Re: (Score:2)
When we complained, their reply was because only couple leds malfunctioned and according to ISO blabla#000134 it needs 7 leds (or something like that) to malfunction to define a monitor as "defective". Never looked at the real "standard". Well.. we accept that this monitor is in perfect working condition. Therefor we are returning this perfect working monitor and want our money back like your guarantee promises.
A bit of the same thing actually, being able to return defective products is the law (the standard). Being able to return a non-defective product is a service (usually, we have a consumer only remote sale exception around here). It matters to the company because they can try to pass it off to a less discerning customer, who might not care the way you do. I did have an LCD with a stuck green pixel once, never felt it was that big a deal but then again I don't do graphics all day.
Re: (Score:2)
A pixel on an LCD monitor is not an "LED". If it has LEDs at all, they are just backlights.
Re: Is ISO even relevant? (Score:1)
The only really broken thing in ODF was the lack of standard formula syntax. This has now been fixed in version 1.2.
Re: Is ISO even relevant? (Score:2)
Can you explain how it is broken?
Re: (Score:1)
And now that's its official, we can ask Microsoft to follow official standards ;)
Re: (Score:2)
People care if an Opendocument Foundation document is part of an ISO standard, not so much about ISO itself, subsequent to well documented acts of prostitution.
does this clarify ODF rendering? (Score:2)
i recall that Microsoft elected to use their own interpretation of how the ODF should be rendering because the standard was unclear about how some things should be rendered. does this clarify those issues so it will render properly on MS software?
What does"welcome-to-the-majors dept." mean? (Score:2)
What does"welcome-to-the-majors dept." mean? ODF was an ISO/IEC standard since 2006. The ODF 1.1 update was published by ISO/IEC in 2012. But now that the second update has been published they're considered "in the majors" for some reason?
It's certainly worthwhile to know that 1.2 is out and accepted as the new version of the standard, so I'm not complaining in a "why is this news" sense, but the " from the welcome-to-the-majors dept." byline that was added makes no sense - it's as though Soulskill was u
how long does slashdot hold this stuff for? (Score:2)
ODF 1.2 was published TWO MONTHS AGO.
What about OOXML? (Score:2)
Has the latest version of OOXML been submitted to a standards agency?