[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    [Daniel.Vogelheim@germany.sun.com: Re: [office_standards] Structured file formats / Packaging]
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () planescape ! com>
Date:       2001-08-16 8:38:07
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi, I have been communicating with Openoffce (ex staroffice) programmer
since a week now, and basically they want to stick with Zip (alias jar) file
format for speed.

As I don't see myself making the desicion to change the packaging format, 
i'd like your input on this..


----- Forwarded message from Daniel Vogelheim <Daniel.Vogelheim@germany.sun.com> -----

Subject: Re: [office_standards] Structured file formats / Packaging
To: office_standards@openoffice.org
Mailing-List: contact office_standards-help@openoffice.org; run by ezmlm
X-No-Archive: yes

Hello Thomas,


> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:43:35PM +0200, Martin Gallwey wrote:
> > Don't know what else to say, except that while ZIP isn't perfect, I think
> > it's better than the other options.

> Ok, point made.

> No problem, pitty that we can't use the same open standards for all 
suites ;)

Well, maybe it's not possible. And then, maybe it is. We are not going to 
find out, unless we actually try.

> I just can not start using zip in koffice, my users will not accept the
> compatibility problems it gives. (Which is why we allready stopped trying
> to use a tar.bz2 solve)

Yes, (forwards-)compatibility is a big concern. The StarOffice 3.x-5.x 
developers (I wasn't around then) jumped through hoops to support the 
same format across versions. However, for the various formats that we 
have used in the past 15 years, we have repeatedly found advantages that 
are worth switching to a new format for. A standardized packaging 
solution may well be the next one. 

Maybe it helps if I explain how this whole thing came to pass:

When doing our new format in XML, we eventually needed an XML packaging 
format. The W3C had already looked at XML packaging, but hasn't 
instantiated a work-group for it, much less one with results. Without a 
standard to use, we had to do our own. After evaluating several choices, 
we decided for ZIP and, among others, against .tar.gz. The decision was 
based on various technical merits which we finally documented on our web 
page.

We considered standardization of our format (package + XML format) 
through formal standards bodies like W3C or Oasis, but eventually decided 
to put this off until later. More specifically, until we actually have 
something that could be standardized.

Recently, AbiWord and Gnumeric started looking for a packaging solution 
of their own. They wanted to use our documentation as a starting point 
for the discussion. 

Martin and I used the chance to bring up the standardization thing, and 
the idea seemed reasonably well received. The idea for standardization is 
somewhat older, but the time and form in which it now takes place has 
largely been determined by Dom and Jody, who quite unexpectedly (to me, 
at least) opened a chance for cooperation.

You see, the W3C has already started to look at XML packaging. I'm 
convinced this XML packaging is going to happen, whether anyone of us 
wants it or not. It's just too obvious a thing, one that anyone will need 
who seriously uses XML for documents. Note that the W3C, KOffice, 
AbiWord, Gnumeric and OpenOffice.org all came to the same conclusion in 
this matter.

I am also convinced that eventually we are going to support it, no matter 
how it looks like. Users are very interested in interoperability (and 
therefore in standards). That's why all of us have to support MS file 
formats, whether we like it or not. I'm certain that eventually users 
will demand (and get) support for any W3C blessed packaging standard, 
too. But with W3C XML packaging, and unlike with MS file formats, we 
actually have a chance to get involved and to make sure that the 
packaging format will be well-designed and meet our requirements. I want 
to use that chance.

One of the big reasons for using XML is that we gain an entire 
infrastructure of XML libraries and tools that we and our users can use 
to our advantage. With a W3C XML packaging standard, we are hoping for 
similar benefits. As I said before, I'm convinced it will happen, and 
when it happens, I want OpenOffice.org to benefit from that. Actually 
pushing the standard forwards ourselves is probably the best way to 
achieve this.

OK, that's our agenda in this. I guess, it all boils down to the 
following question: Are you willing to support a standard, even if it may 
not turn out to be exactly what you want it to be?

Dom of AbiWord has already answered that question, saying 'I will 
definitely make the suggestion that GnomeOffice use whatever standard we 
formally suggest and develop here.' That's a *great* statement. 

I happily say "yes" myself. Now, I'm not alone on our side, but we 
(mainly Martin) have talked to a number of people here, and other 
developers and our management agree. The statement isn't quite as strong 
as Dom's, but it's certainly a good start.


So you say we can't use the same standards for all office suites. I'm not 
convinced, because all of us face basically the same problems. There are 
several issues where we have different priorities. For example, KOffice, 
AbiWord and Gnumeric need a way to easily recognize their files, which we 
don't have. We in turn insist that the files should be readable and 
writeable with common tools, which no one else seems to care about. I 
believe those issues can be reconciled. We haven't even gotten to the 
point of collecting all requirements: it's certainly not technical 
problems that hinder us currently. The issue of format compatibility 
certainly shouldn't keep us from *talking* about a common standard.

Well, the discussion has very quickly degraded into technical details, 
before we even completed a list of requirements, as was originally 
suggested. Since the premature discussion of technicalities hasn't done 
the discussion any good, I'll try to follow the original plan and put 
together a list of new requirements (and candidates) on our website soon. 
It should be possible to give all interested parties write access, so 
that everyone can contribute comments. Once we have collected all 
commentary, we can fill out the technical details that are still unclear.


What about ZIP vs. tar.gz? Well, part of the reason why we champion ZIP 
is that we already have it. But the larger part is that, when making our 
decision, we deliberately decided against tar.gz (which was originally 
favored by several people here) because is has certain shortcomings. None 
of these have gone away in the mean time, and they aren't going to go 
away by calling them 'implementation problems' which in general they 
aren't.


> Thomas Zander                                            
zander@earthling.net
> The only thing worse than failure is the fear of trying something new

Yes. And I don't really see how this correlates with your previous 
statements.


Anyway, as I said above: The question is whether one is interested in a 
standardized packaging format, even if it's not a personal favorite. My 
answer is  "Yes!". What's yours? (Or KOffice's, for that matter.)



Sincerely,
Daniel Vogelheim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: office_standards-unsubscribe@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: office_standards-help@openoffice.org


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Thomas Zander                                            zander@earthling.net
The only thing worse than failure is the fear of trying something new

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
_______________________________________________
Koffice-devel mailing list
Koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]