2010-01-25

 

Hooptedoodle: Blog Aversion and Standards Ignorance

This is a maintenance post.  I am twiddling with the template for this blog to see if I can like the result enough to start writing some pent up posts that I have been holding back.

The holding back is, apart from my usual procrastination, because I don’t like the design of this blog page.  I just don’t like it.

[Update 2010-02-03T00:44Z  It seems that Blogger is solving this problem for me.  My love-hate relationship with Google Blogger is going to end with my long-overdue disintermediation from Blogger and graduation to self-publishing as well as the current self-hosting on my own domains and hosting-service arrangements.]

The New Is the Enemy of the What Already Works?

When I started the blog, I decided to use one of the newer ready-made Blogger templates that is all CSS’s and prettified and presumably standards-compliant in some elevated way.  My original blog and its kin have templates from back in the day when HTML tables ruled.  I understand those templates pretty well.  For this blog, I thought I’d modern up.

As I grew to despise the new layout, I turned to my usual solution: hand tweaking the template, something that can be done by code-and-fix clueless manipulation of the template:

Both of these arrangements allow me to muck about without too much risk of completely cratering the blog.

So far, so good, right?

Maybe not. 

At Sea In More “Standard” Than I Need

I haven’t figured out how to tweak the CSS and get the result I want.  And I don’t know when modifications I make might will derail the bits and pieces that Blogger automatically inserts into these pages, following the guidance of specially-coded division classes and magical HTML elements with names like <$BlogDateHeaderDate$>. 

I also don’t have the experience to discern whether the original CSS is very good and what the mound of CSS declarations in the <head> element of every page are required for.  I would like to discard everything not actually being used and then simplify what is left.  I’m not sure how to do that safely.  And I don’t want to make a career out of CSS-crafting, either.  I just want my blog pages to work.

So there is the wonderful preferred “standard” for correctness in web-page operation.   But I can’t decode it enough to make my simple page layout work.

Not Backsliding Just Yet

If all else fails, I will bring over one of my old templates and turn it into one from this blog, rather than attempt to achieve my goal by hacking and hewing on the current CSS-purified design.

Unfortunately, that makes things work with, shudder, the dreaded and feared <table> elements. 

I’m not ready to do that, because one difference in the current format is that it appears to be mobile-ready.  Now, I don’t care all that much whether you can read this post on your telephone.  Still, why lose it if I’ve got it.

A greater concern is the still missing support for accessibility.  While someone may claim that giving up tables for CSS is good for accessibility, it doesn’t actually do anything for accessibility of this site.

I will keep mucking about and we will see where things end up.  It is not promising.  I’m not likely to dig out the CSS1/2 specifications to see how this all really works.  If a little trial-and-error doesn’t cut it, I’ll just struggle along anyhow.

The Old Dog’s Old Trick

I didn’t mind learning HTML.  I didn’t mind learning enough of HTML 4.01 transitional to get along.  Why am I avoiding the latest and greatest or even the recent and still breathing approaches?

I think the difference is that there is no novelty any longer, after acquiring what I needed that was good enough at the time.  What’s next is simply different, but for what I do not noticeably better or interesting.  The old dog doesn’t want the new shiny thing because the old shiny thing was working just fine.  It’s not a new trick, it’s a different trick, and novel only for those whom it their first trick.

And I haven’t given up just yet.  Not in a rush about it either.

Meanwhile, this is a test post to exercise the blog template de jur.

Labels:


# posted by orcmid @ 1/25/2010 07:55:00 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

2009-12-05

 

ODF Implementation-Support Toolkits and Libraries

I have no appraisal of the relative maturity and quality of the various toolkits that are emerging on the ODF scene (and likewise with regard to OOXML).  However, it is important to have a cataloging of what there is.  This is a random start.  I will add to this post and build an nfoWorks catalog page later:

My interest

An important resource for ways to harmonize document formats involves attention to the libraries and models employed for constructing document-centric software and their applications.  This applies for the development of testing and conformance tools as well as for implementation of format-supporting software products.  Indeed, one might reasonably expect that such tools would be a companion demonstration of implementation-support quality.

In the interesting case of OpenDocument Format, the availability of open-source code bases for implementations is both a risk (in that deviations or omissions in support for the standards is are perpetuated through code mimicry) and an opportunity for faster tooling and testing.  Of course, closed-source implementations (and related toolkits) have their own dangers in this regard, while denying public inspection of the code.  I suspect that implementation notes are required in all cases to ensure understanding of intentions and interpretations as well as limitations and the different ways that discretionary matters are handled.

For ODF, the continuing work on toolkits and on independent open-source implementations is providing important diversity.  This can inform the search for a harmonious profile and perhaps suggest adaptations that encourage harmonious implementations.  Diversity across platforms and programming models may also help in the recognition and abstraction of essentials away from implementation incidentals.  That can also be valuable in ensuring that harmonization is on essentials and not accidents of implementation.

I will be reviewing available toolkits, libraries, and APIs as I define my own around interface contracts for abstracted levels of document models and processing support.  I expect some cross-fertilization while adhering to a model that is concentrated on harmony.

Labels: , ,


# posted by orcmid @ 12/05/2009 11:26:00 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

2009-09-08

 

Adding Pursuing Harmony to Technorati

 

vfa6zt4r3h

Just a little housekeeping.  This is a little secret message between me and technorati. 

Labels: ,


# posted by orcmid @ 9/08/2009 04:01:00 PM 1 Comments Links to this post

2009-06-19

 

Office Shots for Confirmed ODF Interchange Fidelity

The new Officeshots.org service received a fair amount of attention at the recent ODF Interoperability Plugfest.  Taking a page from the “test your site with all browsers” tools that are available, Office Shots will take an uploaded ODF document and show how it renders in different ODF-supporting products.  To deal with the problem of confirming appearance of the document back to the submitter, the rendering by each application is captured in PDF.

This is a fledgling service, currently in limited beta.  It is sponsored by the same Dutch organizations that sponsored the ODF Plugfest.

The power of the service is its user-relevant confirmation of the fidelity with which a document of interest is rendered by different ODF-supporting software/platform combinations.  It is an easy way for evaluators to verify whether their important documents are rendered successfully in interchange among ODF products.  It also allows the subjective determination of success to be left in the hands of the users who know what qualifies as acceptable fidelity in each particular case.

One of the most-difficult situations in interchange of documents is when the receiver is seeing something materially different than what the sender (1) had in mind and (2) expects has been communicated.  For the parties to communicate about a suspected difficulty, they need to use a “channel” that differs from the one that has apparently failed.  Screen shots serve that purpose.  PDF is also valuable in the case where a PDF can be extracted that accurately-enough reflects what is intended and/or what is being seen.

Office Shots provide a way to proactively check, either because a problem is suspected with a local rendition or to ensure that a document and the choice of implementation-supported features is treated consistently by a variety of other implementations/platforms.

One can imagine that, over time, we could see Office Shots support links for troubleshooting specific discrepancies, finding practices for avoiding many of them, and easy reporting of problems to development teams.

Office Shots promises to provide a terrific reality-based approach to confirming the interoperability of ODF implementations as far as presentation fidelity is concerned.  This is also a first-line check on confirming difficulties with round-trip inter-product fidelity preservation.  (Of course, if the goal is solely presentation fidelity, PDF and other final-form formats may be preferable, especially when long-term preservation is also a consideration.)

I look forward to the impetus that Office Shots will provide to user recognition of practical ODF interoperability considerations.  I also think it will provide important stimulus and confirmation for developers who want to improve the interoperable use of their ODF-supporting software.

Beside the Officeshots.org site, there are other discussions of the project and its potential:

Labels: ,


# posted by orcmid @ 6/19/2009 10:58:00 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

2009-06-15

 

ODF Interoperability at The Hague

There’s a great event at The Hague these two days: June 15-16, 2009.  It’s all about OpenDocument Format (ODF) and interoperability. 

It is sponsored by a neutral (ODF-supporting) organization. It is attended by major implementers of ODF-supporting products, including IBM, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems.

In short, all of the right people are in the same room, some for the first time, and I am so envious that I am not among them.  There should be a great deal of creative tension.

I will be watching for materials and progress reports.  There is already Doug Mahugh’s useful pre-event post on how Microsoft tested the ODF implementation in Office 2007 SP2 to ensure that it only produced standard-conforming documents and failed in ways that did not introduce security exploits against the Office System or documents of its users.

I have been meaning to post more about my involvement with ODF and how it is fueled by my interest in the harmonious level at which we can start and expand interoperability based around standard, open formats for office-productivity applications.  I will do that separately.  For now, I just want to register my excitement for the positive stage that participation at this meeting represents.

[Update 2009-06-16-18:56Z There are little odds and ends available from the ODF Plugfest so far, and I will compile some links here for safe-keeping.  I am sure there will be additional blog posts and reports by more attendees after they have had some time for reflection]

[Update 2009-06-17-17:11Z with a few more straggling in]

[Update 2009-06-18-17:51Z as other posts show up]

[Update 2009-06-23-14:55Z with some stragglers]

[Update 2009-06-24-18:55Z and one more interesting appraisal]

[Update 2009-06-27-21:40Z and the hits keep on coming …]

[Update 2009-07-01-15:25Z wrapping up, with anything more on plugfests in future posts]

Labels: , , , , ,


# posted by orcmid @ 6/15/2009 12:12:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

2009-06-09

 

ODF and IPR/Licensing Concerns

Here are some apple-orange notions that have come to my attention in an oddly-convergent way.

New OASIS Technical Committee IPR Mode

OASIS has just announced the pending addition of a 4th IPR Mode to the set that technical committees can use as the way intellectual property (mainly essential claims of patents) will be made available to adopters of a TC-produced specification:

  1. RAND Mode, requiring the essential IPR of participants and contributors to be licensable under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms
  2. RF on Rand Terms Mode, a Royalty-Free RAND mode that may have certain limitations
  3. RF on Limited Terms Mode, where the limitations allowed to RF on Rand Terms are not allowed
  4. Non-Assertion Mode, the new mode in which all contributors and participants make a non-assertion covenant with regard to the specifications that obligate them to do so

The ODF TC operates under the RF on Limited Terms Mode, the most-generous mode available until now.  As stated under the OASIS IPR Policy, a TC may not change its IPR Mode without closing and submitting a new charter.  I don’t expect such a shut-down and restart to happen, especially before ODF 1.2 becomes a ratified OASIS Standard.

Many will welcome this new mode.  I know that my willingness to participate in OASIS Technical Committee activities increases exponentially as we move down the list.  The RF on Limited Terms and the new Non-Assertion modes are the only ones that I have no hesitation about. 

The Non-Assertion Mode is comparable to everyone obligated by the IPR mode having automatically made an equivalent of the Microsoft Open-Specification Promise with regard to the specifications produced by the TC during their participation. 

Of course contributors, participants, and anyone else can provide non-assertion covenants with regard to any specification, as Sun Microsystems did for ODF in September, 2005.

Implementation License Models and Interoperability

The licenses under OASIS IPR modes apply to implementations of the applicable specifications, such as ODF.

I have recently been dealing with provisions of the ODF specification that do not seem to be understandable on their own, not even by consulting referenced source materials.  In that case, there is no way to ensure interoperability without consulting an implementation or two.  In complex cases (such as figuring out how to decrypt an ODF document that is encrypted using the approach sketched in the ODF specification), it is actually necessary to inspect code to determine what the missing but essential details might be.  (It would be better to find implementation descriptions that explain how the specification is being satisfied, but too often the code is the only reliable implementation description.)

When the code is available in an open-source implementation, it may be possible to reverse-engineer an implementation-independent interoperable interpretation.  That is what I would look for, assuming that I could master such code well enough to resolve questions the specification leaves open. 

Consulting code works for detective work around clarification and hole-filling of the specification.  If I want to make an implementation based on that interpretation, I must be especially careful about the license on that code.  For example, LGPL and GPL code and other reciprocal-license open-source software is not useful to me in producing software under a license that I prefer (Open BSD, Apache, etc.).   I am cautious about digging around in voluminous code anyhow, but I am particularly wary about risking that I might copy GPL code.

In this case, I am reluctant to rely too strongly on an abstracted interpretation unless the specification itself is updated and issued with an interpretation I can then safely rely on.

In effect, specifications that are sufficient for implementation-independent achievement of interoperability, along with royalty-free licenses or covenants, provide the ultimate clean-room support for achievement of unencumbered independent implementations.

That’s what I’m after.

Labels: , , , ,


# posted by orcmid @ 6/09/2009 01:34:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

2009-03-29

 

Open Government Data: Simple Principles

I finally noticed the Open Government Data Principles and associated Open Government Data site and Wiki (via Doc Searls).

It strikes me how much simpler and well-framed this discussion is, contrasted with the over-stated manifesto for document freedom.

Somehow, when it is about simply-described affirmative principles, it becomes simpler to grasp and to imagine the possibilities and opportunities that are afforded.  Here are the key qualities around public government data public made open:

with reviewable compliance.

There is more to be found on the wiki, and anyone can register and add their questions and perspective to the fleshing-out of these notions.

One can splice open documents, especially the public’s documents, into this structure as well.  This puts important context around the technological issues involved in having documents in formats that everyone can use and that are freely implementable in computer software.

This has me think of a few other qualities that might matter in both domains, especially around durability/permanence.

You might have some thoughts about this too.  Visit the Open Government Working Group page for more.

Labels: ,


# posted by orcmid @ 3/29/2009 12:27:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post