OOXML expert: ODF standard is broken
Summary
Topics
Alex Brown, a document-format expert who is convener of the process to standardize Office Open XML (OOXML), posted a blog this week reporting the results of tests which he claims reveal that OpenOffice documents do not conform to the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO's) version of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard.
Speaking to ZDNet.co.uk this week, Brown, who reported similar problems between Microsoft Office 2007 documents and the OOXML standard, said the standardized version of ODF, known as ISO/IEC 26300:2006, "has a defect which prevents any document claiming validity from being actually valid. Consequently, there are no XML documents in existence which are valid to ISO ODF."
There is a critical flaw in the ODF schema defined by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (Oasis) and approved by ISO as ISO/IEC 26300:2006, according to Brown's blog, which means that no XML document can conform to the standard. Although the flaw invalidates ODF as a standard, it is relatively easy to fix, and Brown provided a defect report and suggested fix in his blog.
Even using a mended schema, Brown found in a "smoke test" that OpenOffice still does not produce valid standard documents: "This is to be expected and is a mirror case of what was found for Microsoft Office 2007." A smoke test is not a complete test, but the equivalent of starting up a car engine to see if it smokes, he explained.
Microsoft Office 2007 has not caught up with the ISO standard based on OOXML because changes were implemented in an ISO meeting, but OpenOffice has "bypassed" ISO/IEC 26300:2006, said Brown: "It aims at its consortium standard, just as Microsoft Office does".
Although OpenOffice is only one implementation of ODF, it is more popular than other ODF-based applications, such as KOffice, said Brown, and is therefore a good test. Brown took the same document that he used in his test of Microsoft Office 2007's conformance to the OOXML standard, saved it using OpenOffice and tested the resulting .odt (ODF format) file. It produced thousands of errors, most of which were very similar to each other.
The ODF community has yet to respond to Brown's findings and is currently working on a new version of ODF, version 1.2, for submission to ISO. Brown said his suggested change should be built into the ISO standard, based on ODF 1.0. "Technically this is not huge news," Brown told ZDNet.co.uk, "but ISO/IEC 26300:2006 is currently the only ODF standard and ISO should fix problems when they have been found."
Although Brown has been labeled as an OOXML supporter, he said he is in favor of all good standards and that, by offering a fix to ODF, he is actually supporting the document format. Brown referred to a post by Patrick Durusau, editor of the ODF standard, in which Durusau argued that standards supporters should promote and develop their own standards instead of "bashing" others.
"There may be flaws in ODF, but it is quite usable as it is," said John McCreesh, OpenOffice's marketing lead in the UK. He maintained that ODF is superior to OOXML, and that OpenOffice's team is uncovering problems with inputting OOXML documents: "If you do what the specification says, it doesn't look the same as it does in Office Word 2007. People want compatibility with Word 2007, not with some document that's alleged to say what the specification is."
Fundamentally, the issue is allowing user companies to be sure that their documents, which contain their intellectual property, will still be readable in 20 years' time, said McCreesh.
Talkback Most Recent of 11 Talkback(s)
-
I guess this guy is digging a deeper hole for himself...
He's already been debunked (See http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/odf-validation-for-dummies.html), and he may be in trouble in the UK for being one of the key figured in switching the UK vote on OOXML.
zkiwi2nd May 2008 -
I guess this guy is digging a deeper hole for himself...
I hardly think a post by Rob who isn't exactly an impartial party qualifies as a debunking.
Both ODF and OOXML need improvement and any non-zeolot would acknowledge this as fact.
Patronus2nd May 2008 -
Well...
As far as I can see, Brown tested against ODF 1.1 which is neither arthur (ODF 1.0), nor martha (ODF 1.2) as far as ISO is concerned. ODF 1.2 will be the official revision.
So, I guess I'm a little dubious of this pronouncement that OO doesn't do ODF properly.
zkiwi2nd May 2008 -
Well...
It OO extends ODF all over the place. It is fair because large portions of ODF are optional but it does make interop pretty tough when it is extended ad hoc.
Patronus2nd May 2008 -
Ad hoc?
Nah, they're being fairly systematic. If you look into it you'll see that the goal is ODF 1.2, which they will put into the regular ISO process.
And as a reminder, I was just a little ticked off that this Alex Brown guy making a claim that OO doesn't do ODF, when he wasn't testing the right stuff, and he was one of the key guys in the UK switching to a "yes" for OOXML fast tracking.
zkiwi2nd May 2008 -
I like the bit that says ...
"Invalidates it as a standard." LOL.
But it's fine to steamroller through an unworkable and 80% unreviewed standard.
"Microsoft ISO. Building a future for Microsoft."
fr0thy23rd May 2008 -
Fair enough
Propose amendments to fix the flaws so that they can be discussed.
John L. Ries2nd May 2008 -
ISO no longer matters
No one takes them seriously now.
This guy is one of the corrupt many who caused this by all accounts. Ignore & move on.
stevey_d3rd May 2008 -
Well, if he's an OOXML "expert"
he doesn't know what a standard is anyway, so how could he NOT think ODF is broken?
Poor fellow is as lost as a goose in a hailstorm. Trying to fly backwards, no less.
Ole Man3rd May 2008 -
RE: OOXML expert: ODF standard is broken
See the article on Rob Weir's Blog,
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/odf-validation-for-
dummies.html
I think Brown is spreading FUD.
prw35054th May 2008 -
Who cares, ISO has degraded into a corporate ($$$) driven body . . .
. . . beholden to big corporations.
A new, "TRUE standards" body is needed.
.
Basic Logic4th May 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox




