What IBM VP Bob Sutor does not want you to read -- Updated

UPDATE — I sent an email to Bob Sutor with a link to this article, which led to him posting my comment discussed below and explaining that my post was diverted by the Spam filter on his blog. We had a private email conversation about his new "real names" policy.

I've suggested that he filter by quality of content rather than by names, since: [i] it's a near impossible task to confirm that "real names" are being used; [ii] U.S. law allows people to change their names without resort to an official name change and the use of nicknames is common; and [iii] a "real name" policy blocks the contributions of those who would get in trouble if they spoke freely.

I don't fall in the latter category. The crowning achievement of my retirement from the practice of law was becoming a private person again. I've grown a beard and can walk the dog now without being recognized and chatted up by strangers, my telephone number is unlisted, and I only answer the telephone by appointment. At the same time, my given name has always been available to anyone by email. I just don't want it splattered all over the Web. I'm not impossible to find; I just keep it difficult enough to ensure that people have a strong reason to track me down as a filtering device.

I thank Sutor for relaxing his new policy enough to post my comment with only my "Marbux" pseudonym.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE —

This site is now live, although there's a ton of customization and configuration work to be done. But we might as well kick off by reprinting a comment I unsuccessfully attempted to post on IBM vice president Bob Sutor's blog today.

I'm flattered that my post was the apparent triggering event for Sutor's announcement later in the day that he will now only allow comments from people who use their "real names."

Of course Sutor has known my "real name" for at least a couple of years now and he stated no objections to my use of a pseudonym before I began blowing the non-interoperability whistle not only on OOXML but also on ODF. He and I corresponded often enough before we went public over the OASIS OpenDocument Technical Committee's refusals to deal with some very grave interoperability issues. Undoubtedly Sutor will soon be requiring passports to prove people are using "real names" when they post comments on his blog.

Sutor also wrote, "I’ll try to let people know of this if they submit comments with a valid email address." Odd that I didn't get that email. I used Firefox's autofill feature to add my "real email address" to the post. It is the same email address I've used almost exclusively for several years now and even as I write more mail is coming in addressed using the same address.

But that's enough for now about the thinness of Sutor's excuse for moderating my post ("I’m not anonymous here, so neither should you be on this blog if you have something to say.")

Sutor's relevant blog article was published on January 23, criticizing Office Open XML on non-interoperability grounds. ("Interoperability means that other applications can process the files fully and not just products from Microsoft.") A gentleman named Dave posted a comment displaying a degree of naivety that simply begged for response:

The ODF world is free from monopolies at the moment. As such, implementors of ODF have an incentive to strive for full implementation - but more importantly, they have an incentive to strive for PRACTICAL INTEROPERABILITY. Microsoft as the incumbent monopolist has no such motivation with its MSOOXML.

So with that context, here is what I wrote in response that Sutor apparently does not want the world to read:

* * * * *

Dave, you couldn't be more wrong about OpenDocument, incentives, and interoperability. The ODF spec has precisely zero interoperability conformance requirements. It's a blank check for application and vendor-specific extensions with not even a superset profile specified for interoperability purposes let alone subset profiles. Moreover, there are no restrictions on implementing applications destroying markup created by other conforming applications.

I'll save the long-winded explanation and let Thomas Zander, the lead developer for KDE KOffice's word processor, explain it to you in plain language:

"One thing I have always dreamed to be possible is that when I write a doc in KOffice I can then open it in OOo to use that one feature that's useful to me and then save it and continue in KOffice without loosing lots of data.

"Its still a dream, of course. Most features are lost on opening and saving it in OOo, but its a nice goal[.]"

http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/odf-adoption/200709/msg00032.html

Consider the history of just one KDE interoperability proposal on the ODF Technical Committee, to have the OpenOffice.org unique document settings markup fully specified in the ODF standard:

The action item was not restored until recently, after others and I began publicizing the failure of virtually every interoperability proposal that had been submitted to the ODF TC. But there is still no action on the item. In the meantime, the only specification of such application-specific markup lies in the OOo source code, where only tag names and not their functionality are identified. See e.g., lines 169-211 at Link.

Microsoft has been roundly and deservedly criticized for putting application-specific document settings markup in the OOXML specification. Is ODF somehow superior because it allows the creation and use of such custom markup without any specification whatsoever? Here is what it says in the ODF conformance section:

"Documents that conform to the OpenDocument specification may contain elements and attributes [extensions] not specified within the OpenDocument schema. Such elements and attributes must not be part of a namespace that is defined within this specification and are called foreign elements and attributes.

...

"The various <style:*-properties> elements may have arbitrary attributes attached …

...

"There are no rules regarding the elements and attributes that actually have to be supported by conforming applications, except that applications should not use foreign elements and attributes for features by the OpenDocument schema.

ISO/IEC:26300-2006 OpenDocument section 1.5.
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html

Short story: ODF "interoperability" is a complete and utter myth and the OpenDocument TC isn't exactly excited about making the myth come true. "Open" and "interoperable" are *not* synonyms, whether that bit of disinformation comes from Microsoft or anyone else. When ODF advocates criticize OOXML on grounds of non-interoperability, it's no more than the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

* * * * *

By the way, this web site is devoted to the subject of interoperability. We'll be dealing with the interoperability strengths and weaknesses of a number of file format specifications, including OOXML. But on an interoperability scale of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, both ODF and OOXML presently deserve no better than The Ugly rating.

Comments

Dates please
Mon, 08/18/2008 - 23:37 — portia60

Not the kind you eat.

How about date/time stamps on the posts? I like to have some idea of the time context.

And how the hell are you? Shaking the timbers as always, I see. :)

PF