Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3A1E6D10-6702-4BC5-9E37-306C25A4E4E9@comcast.net>
References: 
 <OF4001E706.639542BF-ON85257AA9.00590116-85257AA9.005C165D@lotus.com>
	<5093870D.3010605@apache.org>
	<3A1E6D10-6702-4BC5-9E37-306C25A4E4E9@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 17:02:25 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksoj_6iT7xR+-X0va8G7k04P8pdyDVDRq=bJXPQ_23kZOsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AOO.Next IBM Priorities
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2012 robert_weir wrote:
>>> We (IBM) have consulted with customers, internal users, other IBM produ=
ct
>>> teams, on what our (IBM's) development priorities should be for the nex=
t
>>> AOO release.  Obviously, we're not the only ones with priorities or
>>> interests or opinions.  We don't make AOO decisions by ourselves.  But =
we
>>> want to be transparent about what our own priorities are
>>
>> Thank you for sharing. They are all good and needed contributions and th=
ey cover many of the main results from the Google Moderator user survey.
>>
>> There are still missing things that I've seen requested and that I would=
 personally like to see in the product (a non-exhaustive list would include=
: better OOXML support,
>
> If a Java library is not a barrier then Apache POI might be helpful. Talk=
 to Nick Burch or Yegor Kozlov at Apachecon EU.
>
>> full or enhanced ODF 1.2 support,
>
> Again if Java is not a barrier the Apache ODFToolkit (incubating) might b=
e a reasonable tool - What do you think Rob?
>

>From what I've seen the issue is not in parsing the file format, or
operations at that level.  The issues are in the fine points of layout
and rendering, and even then it is often a disconnect between the
document model implied by Microsoft Word's formats and those used
internally by OpenOffice.  For example, different models for dealing
with nested lists.

ISO did a report on how ODF and OOXML correspond, and what was
possible via direct translation.  Unfortunately it is behind a
paywall:  http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detai=
l.htm?csnumber=3D45245

There is also a related whitepaper by Fraunhofer FOCUS:
http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/en/elan/publikationen/infomaterial/white_pap=
er/documentinteroperability/index.html
  (Microsoft sponsored, but still some good background info on the
issues).

In any case, to the question of priorities:  If you check the trunk,
you'll see that we have actually checked in quite a few MS interop
related fixes.  Our team in Beijing was focused on that while the rest
of us were focused on the 3.4.1 branch.  So AOO 4.0 will have some
noticeable improvements in this area, even if we work on other items
now.

Regards,

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> better defaults, better integration with the Extensions and Templates si=
tes or in general better visibility for the additional resources, a refresh=
ed visual identity not only in the interface...), and indeed it will be goo=
d to start collecting priorities on the wiki and assess feasibility of the =
underlying development.
>>
>> And then of course there's the community side: we are now able to engage=
 localization volunteers but there is still work to do to be able to engage=
 unaffiliated developers, so we might take that into consideration when dis=
cussing the new features.
>>
>>> releasing is PMC decision, not an IBM one.  But we think that this work
>>> could be completed and tested for a release in the March/April 2013
>>> time-frame.  And the scope of the release might be significant enough t=
o
>>> warrant a "4.0" designation.
>>
>> Seems like this would be a good plan. Let's make it real!
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>