Talk:OpenDocument

Untitled
Death link: http://std.dkuug.dk/keld/iso26000-odf linked text: The OASIS Committee Specification OpenDocument 1.0 (second edition)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.55.240 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Simplification
It makes a lot of sense to me to remove unnecessary details and redundancy because the article does not target a technical audience. For instance: "After responding to all written ballot comments, and a 30-day default ballot, the OpenDocument International standard went to publication in ISO, officially published November 30, 2006.", what is actually relevant here? Maybe the official date of publication. Many sentences of the article could be simplified and de-obfuscated --Arebenti (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)--79.204.190.26 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend moving almost all of the material on standardization to the web page OpenDocument_standardization. I would keep only a version of the final two paragraphs: 1) that the current version is 1.3 and 2) that there is continuing work. The rest was topical 17 years ago but not now. I will not make any changes myself.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org Calc to MediaWiki
How do I import an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet to Wikipedia? I want to keep as much formatting as possible. Allen (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Short answer: You can't.  Wikipedia has its own wiki table format.  See Help:Wikitable and Help:Table.  However, it can also support, within limits, simple HTML, but don't expect to spit out an HTML file with OpenOffice.org Calc and simply drag it into Wikipedia, as the MediaWiki engine won't understand 80% of the code and you'll have to do significant re-coding of the HTML anyway. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Restrictions
I don't know if this were better suited to another article but I've just been trying to wrap my head around Sun's patent statement recarding OpenDocument format, specifically: '' One precondition of any such license granted to a party ("licensee") shall be the licensee's agreement to grant reciprocal Royalty-Free Licenses under its Essential Claims to Sun and other implementers of such specification. Sun expressly reserves all other rights it may have.''

Does this mean that a book (or at least a copy of a book's text) written/made available in .odf format falls under a "reciprocal Roaylty-Free License" as well? Or does the liscence only apply to other computer programs implimenting the markup language and not documents created/saved in .odf format?

I'm currently writing a novel in open office so this means something to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.94.250 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources Template
The preamble to this article invokes the Primary Sources Template which states, "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications.", as if that were a bad thing. However, in the case of an openly developed international standard, I do not think it is a bad thing. It seems to me that the Primary Sources Template is appropriate only when the source in question has some proprietary interest. In standards development, there is plenty of introspection in the process. The output of that process is precisely what _should_ be relied upon. I recommend removing the template. DrHow (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On what basis? Nobody is saying that this is a bad thing - that's the reason why these templates are also called maintain boxes. The template only says that the article relies on primary sources (and not on third party). Either fix the problem or let it as it is. mabdul 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a formal issue. Means that you have to use an appropriate template, and add the ref information.--Arebenti (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on OpenDocument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615185541/http://www.ua.es:80/en/rua/formatos.html to http://www.ua.es/en/rua/formatos.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

odf 1.3
odf 1.3 is out. the article is outdated--2A02:587:4409:2F7F:540A:1598:C962:479E (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

See

https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2020/01/21/odf-1-3-approved-as-oasis-committee-specification/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:3491:A701:51F2:1EAA:35AC:AAF2 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have removed the 'Future' heading so that the part about 1.3 is now simply an item under 'Further standardization'. The same goes for the change-tracking part, and I do not know the status of that. But the 'further' in 'further standardization' is not entirely clear to me anyway. I guess it is just vague enough to allow for any versions to be put under this section... --MichielN (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic Link
The link at the end Reactions to Microsoft lobbying at ISO is not related to ODF (and has severe problems) and should be removed. I will not remove it. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

.odb ?
The disambiguation page ODB claims that ".odb" is a "file extension for OpenDocument format databases", and the .odb lemma currently links to OpenDocument, however "odb" is not mentioned in the article at all. --BjKa (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)