Official Danish complaint to ISO

The organazation OSL (www.osl.dk) (Danish organazation of OpenSource vendors) has officially posted a complaint to ISO (and Danish Standards). The complaint is regarding the process in the Danish National Body.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.computerworld.dk/art/46122%3Fa%3Drss%26i%3D0&hl=da&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=ISO-8859-1

Danish OpenOffice.org Newsletter

Danish OpenOffice.org Newsletter out now:
Text version: http://da.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=nyhedsbrev&msgNo=49
PDF version: http://doc.oooforum.dk/Nyhed/2008Juni.pdf

English update in the Danish thing

This is easier than writing: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7661

First, I didn't believe this: ODF support in MS Office

First my heart took two extra jumps. Then I had to get my breath back. Computerworld in Denmark claims that Microsoft will announce support for ODF in 2009. This should be a part of Office service pack 2. The announcement should be public tomorrow morning.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.dk%2Fart%2F45934&hl=da&ie=UTF8&sl=da&tl=en

http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=32228

Reaction from Parliament ...

Members of the parliament are angry that they didn't know about the total split in the Technical Committee under Danish Standards.

Several Danish IT policy rapporteurs are surprised that the OOXML Committee with Danish Standard has been totally divided. It will have consequences, "said Morten Helveg Pedersen (R).

http://www.computerworld.dk/art/45845

English: http://translate.google.dk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.dk%2Fart%2F45845&hl=da&ie=UTF8&sl=da&tl=en

Municipal of Aarhus post a complaint to DS

The city of Aarhus has posted an official complaint to Danish Standards regarding the result of the Danish YES-vote.

The complaint is regarding the fact that *all* non-profit votes in Denmark asked for a NO. Only commercial pro-Microsoft participants voted YES.

http://www.computerworld.dk/art/45835 English: http://translate.google.dk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.dk%2Fart%2F45835&hl=da&ie=UTF8&sl=da&tl=en
http://www.version2.dk/artikel/7287

I doubt that this complaint can change anything, but it's nice to see some response from the TC-members. They all excuse them selves with: "We all agreed not to discuss the process in public".

OpenOffice.org 3.0 - videos

OpenOffice.org 3.0 was released for beta this week. Here is a few videos from the Danish version:

New front page:


New zoom function


New comment function

Behind or ahead

Clarifying versions:

OpenOffice.org 2.0 - 2.3.1	ODF 1.0	Approved by ISO
OpenOffice.org 2.4	ODF 1.1	Has not submitted to ISO for approval
OpenOffice.org 3.0 (upcomming) - ?	ODF 1.2	Under development

The problem with Alex Browns validation test (http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f0384bed-808b-49a8-8887-ea7cde5caace) is, that he is using a document from OpenOffice.org 2.4 and validates it against the ISO-approved standard. Jesper Lund Stocholm claims (http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx) that he has created some documents with various versions of OpenOffice.org that doens't validates correctly. From my knowledge, Jesper hasn't put any documentation to support witch validation method he used nor put forward the bespoken documents. He has not even told us the seriousness (number of errors) of the 'variations'.

ODF file format is maintained by a technical committee under OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office). Members of the committee are developers and managers from Sun Microsystems, IBM and many other companies (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=office) and it is in fact OpenOffice.org and StarOffice, that is 'pulling' the development, because OpenOffice.org happens to be the project ahead in development. OpenOffice.org comes with about four releases each year. A standard specification is not work from an office desk, but experience from real world development. Therefore the technical development will be a little bit ahead of the specification work and approval. Thats how standard specifications are developed.

When the specification is ready from OASIS, it can be submitted to ISO for approval. One important condition for ISO approval is "multiple implementations". It's a question about the hen and the egg. The specification can't be approved if it hasn't been implemented and now we are been criticized for implementing it before it's approved. That doesn't make sense.

Both the standard and the programs are simultaneously developed over time. The question is, if we should make a choice in the program, that makes it possible to 'Save as...' ODF 1.0. This is of cause possible but not that simple. But should we develop OpenOffice.org according to what the users need or what the politicians need ? Probably both. But an extra 'Save as' option could do more harm than good, because it would confuse users. Nevertheless, this problem will be taken care of in OpenOffice.org 3.0. Another problem is, that higher ODF versions contains much more information and is of better quality. There is no need to use any ODF versions lower than the latest, except of cause, the ISO stamp.

So what's the difference between Microsoft/OOXML and OpenOffice.org/ODF ?
The difference is, that Microsoft Office is behind OOXML. OpenOffice.org is ahead of ODF. According to the ISO rules, a specification can only be approved as an ISO-standard, unless it has been implemented.

Java update adverts OpenOffice.org

For some time there has been an advert for OpenOffice.org showing on the screen as the regular Java Update downloads and installs. I'm very happy about Sun advertizing for OpenOffice.org like this and its a good way to spread the message to millions and millions of computers and users all over the world.

A few days ago I got a call from a journalist (http://www.computerworld.dk/art/45636) asking me about this. He also asked me about the small icon that appears on my desktop: Get OpenOffice.org. A click on it leads me to a Sun Jave page with link to downloading.

The icon is not a shortcut to the URL but a sjortcut to a small exe-file on my computer: ..\Sun\OpenOffice.org Installer 1.0\ooostub.exe. My first reaction was, that this will lead a lot of new users to the download site. I think its important that we (and Sun) uses this opportunity to spread the word, but I'm actually not happy that Sun is installing executables on my computer without my knowledge.

On the other hand... We know that our competitors are using much more tricky and much less honest marketing methods. One of the most frequent asked questions is this:

I bought a new computer with Microsoft Office 2007 preinstalled. Now 30 (or 60) days later, it doesn't work anymore. Hos can I edit my documents?

If we want to keep up with this, we must learn to be more agressive in marketing. But I don't think its a good thing to install executable code on computers without the users permission.