blog/archive/2009/08/08.rss

   1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
   2 <rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/'>
   3         <channel>
   4                 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen - Entries from August 2009</title>
   5                 <description>Entries from August 2009</description>
   6                 <link>../../../</link>
   7
   8
   9         <item>
  10                 <title>ISO still hope to fix OOXML</title>
  11                 <link>../../../ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</link>
  12                 <guid isPermaLink="true">../../../ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</guid>
  13                 <pubDate>Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
  14                 <description>
  15 &lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a
  16 href=&quot;http://twerner.blogspot.com/2009/08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html&quot;&gt;a
  17 blog post from Torsten Werner&lt;/a&gt;, the current defect report for ISO
  18 29500 (ISO OOXML) is 809 pages.  His interesting point is that the
  19 defect report is 71 pages more than the full ODF 1.1 specification.
  20 Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
  21 can be fixed in ISO.  Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
  22 and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
  23 close to solving the problems.  I was part of the Norwegian committee
  24 involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
  25 Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.&lt;/p&gt;
  26
  27 &lt;p&gt;These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
  28 with the future ahead of it.  We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
  29 seminar this autumn.&lt;/p&gt;
  30 </description>
  31         </item>
  32
  33         <item>
  34                 <title>Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)</title>
  35                 <link>../../../Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</link>
  36                 <guid isPermaLink="true">../../../Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</guid>
  37                 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
  38                 <description>
  39 &lt;p&gt;Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
  40 and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
  41 OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage.  I searched using
  42 &#39;filetype:odt&#39; and equvalent terms, and got these results:&lt;/P&gt;
  43
  44 &lt;table&gt;
  45 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  46 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:282000&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:308000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  47 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:75600&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:183000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  48 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:26500     &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:145000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  49 &lt;/table&gt;
  50
  51 &lt;p&gt;Next, I added a &#39;site:no&#39; limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
  52 got these numbers:&lt;/p&gt;
  53
  54 &lt;table&gt;
  55 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  56 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:2480 &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:4460&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  57 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:299   &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:741&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  58 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:187       &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:372&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  59 &lt;/table&gt;
  60
  61 &lt;p&gt;I wonder how these numbers change over time.&lt;/p&gt;
  62
  63 &lt;p&gt;I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
  64 on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
  65 they are conduced in another country.  Because of this, I did the same
  66 search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
  67 search done from a machine here in Norway.&lt;/p&gt;
  68
  69
  70 &lt;table&gt;
  71 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  72 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:129000&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:308000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  73 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:44200&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:93900&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  74 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:26500     &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:82400&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  75 &lt;/table&gt;
  76
  77 &lt;p&gt;And with &#39;site:no&#39;:
  78
  79 &lt;table&gt;
  80 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  81 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:2480&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:3410&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  82 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:175&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:604&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  83 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:186       &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:296&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
  84 &lt;/table&gt;
  85
  86 &lt;p&gt;Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
  87 numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
  88 </description>
  89         </item>
  90
  91         </channel>
  92 </rss>