tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post7126439187035378524..comments2023-12-30T00:42:43.466-08:00Comments on Open Stack: CDF and Grand ConvergenceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10645842258906731036noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-23411943877722337432010-08-12T20:07:47.671-07:002010-08-12T20:07:47.671-07:00Blue topaz ring will certainly be thpmas sabo your...Blue topaz ring will certainly be <a href="http://www.thomassabos.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>thpmas sabo</strong></a> your best option if you are intended to <a href="http://www.thomassabos.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>thomas sabo jewellery</strong></a> include a ring into your gemstone jewelry collection. <a href="http://www.thomassabos.com/charms" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap thomas sabo charms</strong></a> Either if you wish to wear the ring on a special occasion or <a href="http://www.thomassabos.com/bracelets" rel="nofollow"><strong>thomas bracelets</strong></a> wear this sort of ornaments on a daily basis, <a href="http://www.thomassabos.com/charm-carriers" rel="nofollow"><strong>silver charm carriers</strong></a> it is up to your account. Blue <a href="http://www.thomassabos.com/necklaces" rel="nofollow"><strong>thomas sabo necklaces</strong></a> topaz ring can ensure you that you will attract every person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-3412562214682003202009-11-18T06:13:17.221-08:002009-11-18T06:13:17.221-08:00Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? ...Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? <br />Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-14555448357422472007-10-28T01:46:00.000-07:002007-10-28T01:46:00.000-07:00Anonymous (concerning da Vinci vaporware):Gary, th...Anonymous (concerning da Vinci vaporware):<BR/><BR/>Gary, thanks for your detailed answer!<BR/><BR/>I know the shortcomings of the MS/CleverAge translator, the thing that I found they did well, is the openness and the transparency during development. Everything was done the usual SourceForge way, all information and news and code was available for everybody to read, try and examine, something that is completely not the case for the da Vinci plugin.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I understand that the da Vinci plugin is kept "hostage" for tactical or political reasons (i.e. to bring a committee to vote for something), while on the same time important functionality is kept away from users.<BR/><BR/>As an end user, I want something that works reasonably well, now. Not something perfect that may come some day. And this is also how the market works, sub-perfect solutions that "just work" and are convenient enough prevail over others that strive for perfection but come too late or are not so convenient (MS Windows is a good example of a winner here).<BR/><BR/>So, you are heading for the "holy grail" of interoperability, but in the end reality may leave you behind. My suggestion -purely from an end-user point of view- is:<BR/><BR/>- Create a conversion plugin, as good as you can get it<BR/>- Release it to the public, let people try it and perhaps also improve on it (the open-source way)<BR/>- Make the additional iX features optional and perhaps disable them by default, but allow them to be used anyway<BR/>- If you don't want to "pollute" the name da Vinci with a less-than-perfect solution, use another name (i.e. ACME 3XX)<BR/><BR/>If your plugin brings features that people find useful, you can be sure that its use will spread quickly and this will be of great benefit to the plugin *and* the public. No matter what some committee will or will not vote...<BR/><BR/>My 2 (end-user) cents...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-81265445721121263692007-10-27T14:50:00.000-07:002007-10-27T14:50:00.000-07:00Gary, two quick things on your response to my post...Gary, two quick things on your response to my post:<BR/><BR/>First, on your note that "We don't need proprietary eXtensions to CDF to meet our market requirements", I'd like you to explain <I>how</I> that can be the case. You have only asserted it so far.<BR/><BR/>If you use XHTML to encode basic document content (paragraphs, tables, etc.), then how are you going to encode things that are not defined in XHTML (footnotes, indexes, etc.)? <BR/><BR/>My hunch is you are thinking it will be through using RDF in ways not unlike we are doing in ODF 1.2. But if you do that for core rendering content (e.g. core elements defined in FO, ODF, OOXML, etc.), I submit, then those are effectively proprietary extensions, since they will be defined outside the W3C process.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps my assumptions are wrong. I'm just asking you to clarify.<BR/><BR/>Second, my primary point was not to dispute you on your claims about ODF (not because I don't disagree with them; I just see that as a separate issue). It was to ask how it is that you can claim CDF meets your requirements when the CDF use case and requirement document itself says that it is not intended to.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I will briefly address your comment that "we tried to alter those purposes to meet our own selfish market requirements, as defined by CIO's in Massachusetts, California and the EU, turns out to have been a mistake." You continue to narrate the events of the past, but I'm going to continue to say publicly that I dispute this interpretation. I think the changes you and Marbux sought to make were bad proposals, and you sought to enact them in completely counter-productive ways. If you do the same thing at the W3C, you will fail there as well.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't call your concerns "selfish" but I would say that there's a huge load of insulting revisionism associated with the position that you two (well, three I guess) hold that you alone care about interoperability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-21573690159238668412007-10-27T00:28:00.000-07:002007-10-27T00:28:00.000-07:00IMHO, WPF is an insidious violation of existing an...<I>IMHO, WPF is an insidious violation of existing anti trust laws. It is illegal for Microsoft to leverage their monopoly into other markets. The cost to competitors and and non Microsoft users depending on Open Internet interoperability is beyond measure. But here we are. </I><BR/><BR/>Er, how? WPF as far as I can see it is a modern alternative to Win32 and Windows Forms. It only (for the moment) runs on Windows CXP and Vista, unless you count Silverlight as part of the package. As for 'illegality', I fail to see how one can simply transfer one's monopoly in one market to another which is already saturated with competitors. If WPF succeds in the browser it will be because it's better thatn the competition.<BR/><BR/><I>"One possible answer is to tax all WPF implementations in advance of anti trust action...Or, your company could just say no and that in and of itself would inspire effective alternatives :) "</I><BR/><BR/>I welcome the advent of WPF. My job is to provide our customers in the business (of which there are many) with the best possible software available as cheaply and quickly as possible. The .NET Framework appeals because it is productive and comparatively simple. J2EE does not appeal because it is a damn sight more complicated ad diffcult to program and on Winodws delivers a less appealing user experience.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if we simply abandoned Windows and went to Linux, junking the huge investment we'd made in software up to now and having to redefine the entire support infrastructure, it would keep people like you happy. But somehow I think the shareholders might have something to say.Scope Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01917477822313579400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-47388094976571920892007-10-26T18:18:00.000-07:002007-10-26T18:18:00.000-07:00@darcusblog where Bruce wonders if da Vinci CDF wi...<I>@<A HREF="http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2007/10/26/comparing-cdf-and-odf" REL="nofollow">darcusblog</A> where Bruce wonders if da Vinci CDF will need to use proprietary eXtensions:</I><BR/><BR/>We don't need proprietary eXtensions to CDF to meet our market requirements. Months of testing was required before we could certify this, but it was a necessary prerequisite before a commitment of any kind could be made to CDF. <BR/><BR/>For sure we didn't want to waste five years on CDF only to end up in the same predicament we found ourselves in with ODF.<BR/><BR/>It's nice though that the ODF community is so concerned about our implementation of CDF. I hope however that the sentiment behind these concerns isn't based on a desire that we fail to meet our market requirements with CDF. Like we failed with ODF.<BR/><BR/>The one thing we know for sure is that ODF was not designed to meet these requirements, and there was zero support at OASIS ODF to make any sort of accommodations. <BR/><BR/>That's OK. The ODF Community has every right to continue to define their purpose and destiny. That we tried to alter those purposes to meet our own selfish market requirements, as defined by CIO's in Massachusetts, California and the EU, turns out to have been a mistake. <BR/><BR/>Lesson learned. We won't make that mistake again. <BR/><BR/>What does concern us is that MS-OOXML was exactly designed to meet these market requirements, but leads without deviation or option into the sprawling tar pits of the MS Stack. <BR/><BR/>If it's at all possible to come up with an alternative to MS-OOXML, one that meets the critical requirements, and open up opportunities for MS Stack alternatives along the way, isn't that a good thing?<BR/><BR/>Sometimes i wonder who it is that is acting unreasonably selfish?<BR/><BR/>~ge~Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10645842258906731036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-17401169526363749232007-10-26T17:51:00.000-07:002007-10-26T17:51:00.000-07:00@Anonymous concerning da Vinci vaporware:Download ...@Anonymous concerning da Vinci vaporware:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/acme376.msi" REL="nofollow">Download ACME 376</A> and see for yourself.<BR/><BR/>ACME 376 is the internal conversion engine for da Vinci. We couldn't release an ODF version of da Vinci because ODF is not designed to meet our market requirements. Nor could we release an ODF iX da Vinci because that would implement proprietary eXtensions - the ones we were unable to push through OASIS.<BR/><BR/>So we released the ACME 376 conversion engine portion of da Vinci instead. We wanted to prove our fidelity claims while avoiding the possibility that an ODF iX da Vinci in the wild would totally corrupt the ODF standards effort.<BR/><BR/>Important interoperability would be limited to ODF iX da Vinci versions of MSWord and MS EXcel, excluding exactly the multi application exchange process end users expect from ODF. (We do not have a PowerPoint version - even at the prototype stage).<BR/><BR/>You also might want to check out <A HREF="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dghfk5w9_87cmd39c" REL="nofollow">The da Vinci Conversion Process"</A> for a more complete explanation of how the ACME 376 conversion engine fits into the da Vinci process.<BR/><BR/>One thing i might ask of you anonymous is that you carefully consider the market requirements were working under. They are difficult to say the least. Obviously your own requirements differ, and i'm very pleased to know that the CleverAge Translator works for you. The thing is that it doesn't similarly work for our clients. Nor does the Sun ODF plug-in.<BR/><BR/>Like i said, the market requirements we are working under are difficult.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I would be interested in the kinds of market requirements that you're using the MS-Cleverage Translator for? Our requirements are specific to MSOffice bound workgroups and the need to work within existing business processes without disruption. How do you use the Translator?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the interest and consideration,<BR/>~ge~Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10645842258906731036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-36501428268427621082007-10-26T17:24:00.000-07:002007-10-26T17:24:00.000-07:00@Felonious (3)"I work for a company that is going ...@Felonious (3)<BR/><BR/><I>"I work for a company that is going to deploy 70,000 Vista desktops pretty soon, and I cannot see any justification for ignoring powerful technologies such as WPF simply because they don't adhere to Web standards."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, unless someone offers your company an equivalent but "open" alternative, your company will hardly be alone in this decision. And with those decisions there goes the neighborhood.<BR/><BR/>IMHO, WPF is an insidious violation of existing anti trust laws. It is illegal for Microsoft to leverage their monopoly into other markets. The cost to competitors and and non Microsoft users depending on Open Internet interoperability is beyond measure. But here we are. <BR/><BR/>Once MS users are locked into WPF and the rest of the MS Stack <I>at the business process layer</I>, the cost of undoing the damage falls on users, and government antitrust efforts will be hamstrung by the dilemma. <BR/><BR/>One possible answer is to tax all WPF implementations in advance of anti trust action. Have the users pay the damages to competition right up front. That would lesson the damage and lesson the total cost. <BR/><BR/>Another would be to tax all WPF implementations unless and until the underlying dependencies are either transitioned to truly open standards, or, open sourced under truly open licenses.<BR/><BR/>Or, your company could just say no and that in and of itself would inspire effective alternatives :) Maybe.<BR/><BR/>~ge~Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10645842258906731036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-51716708430735988242007-10-26T16:59:00.000-07:002007-10-26T16:59:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10645842258906731036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-8324284289989168072007-10-26T05:32:00.000-07:002007-10-26T05:32:00.000-07:00The easy question though is based on a rather obvi...<I>The easy question though is based on a rather obvious observation; why isn't Microsoft implementing W3C Standards?</I><BR/><BR/>To which I will reply: Why are people singling out Microsoft when other large concerns are equally as guilty of territorial behaviour, such as Adobe? This is a comment from Tim Anderson's blog (http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=368) which, as always, is spot on:<BR/><BR/><I>"So is Adobe the friend of open source and open standards? It’s not so simple. Adobe is more successful than any other company in promoting proprietary standards on the Internet. It ceased development of the open SVG standard for vector graphics, in favour of the proprietary Flash SWF. Adobe’s efforts may well stymie the efforts of John Resig and others at Mozilla to foster open source equivalents to Flash and AIR. View the slides of his recent talk, which include video support integrated into the browser, a canvas for 3D drawing, HTML applications which run from the desktop without browser furniture, and web applications which work offline. Why is there not more excitement about these developments? Simply, because Adobe is there first with its proprietary solutions."</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's just that Microsoft and Adobe both think they can do it better and they have the presence on the desktop to justify going their own way. I work for a company that is going to deploy 70,000 Vista desktops pretty soon, and I cannot see any justification for ignoring powerful technologies such as WPF simply because they don't adhere to Web standards.Scope Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01917477822313579400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-29109176116174807712007-10-26T04:41:00.000-07:002007-10-26T04:41:00.000-07:00This Da Vinci plugin looks like the biggest piece ...This Da Vinci plugin looks like the biggest piece of VarorWare to me. I have been reading stories how it was successfully demonstrated here and there and how people were utterly excited about it. But when I tried to get it myself... no way!<BR/><BR/>Looks like only a small, selected circle of "the enlighted" have access to it. The rest of us can just go on as before. i.e. without the plugin...<BR/><BR/>If you are serious about the plugin, <B>release it!</B>. Doesn't matter if it is beta, alpha, ready or buggy. Keeping it hidden certainly does not do any good to it.<BR/><BR/>Just as a suggestion how "others" have done it better, take a look <A HREF="http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your time!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-28280593712428639282007-10-25T23:59:00.000-07:002007-10-25T23:59:00.000-07:00Smart tags replaces the previous generation of VBa...Smart tags replaces the previous generation of VBa scripts, macros, OLE, security settings, etc. But Smart tags also brings some new features to MS-OOXML. It is the data binding-data extraction model, the metadata model, and the workflow-intelligent routing mechanism for MS-OOXML applications. The mechanisms are designed into components that are easy to implement via select, drag, and drop widgets.<BR/><BR/>It's actually very cool until you realize what isn't there. Like XForms, SVG, SMiL, XSLT, XQuery, RDF, SPARQL, XHTML, HTML, CSS and CDF. All of which are core W3C Open Web Technology standards.<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't be right to say that Smart Tags directly replaces all of these W3C technologies. I apologise for taking a short cut in a document that was way over length to begin with. But let me try to get it right. What happens is that Smart Tags is the model through which MS proprietary alternatives to these W3C technologies are quickly clipped into MS-OOXML documents and document generating-consuming-processing applications built primarily with Visual Studio .NET.<BR/><BR/>When people examine the Ecma 376 - ISO DiS 29500 candidate, they won't find any of these underlying vendor specific technologies. But when you actually start to use MS-OOXML documents within the MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web applications, there is no way to avoid these dependencies. <BR/><BR/>Imagine if instead of WinForms, Microsoft applications implemented XForms as the standard. Or how about SVG instead of MS Sparkle - XAML? This gets complicated quickly when you realize that XAML is basically what you get with a combination of CSS, SVG, and XUL. Let's go further. Silverlight is designed to work with XAML, and it does appear that MS Microsoft could have chosen SVG to implement the vector graphics subset instead of XAML. MS claims however that this would have thrown them out of synch with the WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) layer of multi media objects and graphics which includes generations of wmv-eml vector-raster graphics. Here's an involved explanation if your interested: <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation" REL="nofollow">Windows Presentation Foundation</A><BR/><BR/>Trying to get your arms around all of this will make you dizzy. The easy question though is based on a rather obvious observation; why isn't Microsoft implementing W3C Standards?<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that one can't use W3C technologies within the MS Stack. The problem is that, within the MS Stack, W3C technologies are second class citizens. They lack the application level interoperability and component based acceleration of MS proprietary dependencies. Dependencies that bind the stack of applications together, and make it sing.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helps,<BR/>~ge~Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10645842258906731036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5462488.post-46596731059036501462007-10-25T01:01:00.000-07:002007-10-25T01:01:00.000-07:00"Note the MS Stack noticeably replaces W3C Open We..."Note the MS Stack noticeably replaces W3C Open Web technologies with Microsoft's own embraced “enhancements”. Starting with MS-OOXML/Smart Tags as a replacement for HTML-XHTML-RDF Metadata. HTML and the Open Web are the targets here. "<BR/><BR/>Excuse me, but could you explain exactly how one is going to replace the other? I can't honestly see any clandestine intentions behind Smart Tags (which are supposed to add business intelligence to documents) and OOXML (which is a somewhat more open format for storing document information) and taking over the Web. I'd really like to see how this flimsy chain of reasoning is connected together.Scope Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01917477822313579400noreply@blogger.com