OpenOffice.org Forum at OOoForum.orgThe OpenOffice.org Forum
 
 [Home]   [FAQ]   [Search]   [Memberlist]   [Usergroups]   [Register
 [Profile]   [Log in to check your private messages]   [Log in

New file formats
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    OOoForum.org Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ed
Super User
Super User


Joined: 28 May 2003
Posts: 1041

PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:14 pm    Post subject: New file formats Reply with quote

I know it's been mentioned before, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.

In the latest developer build of OOo (680m49), the default file formats have been changed to Open Text (oxt aqnd ott), Open Spreadsheet (oxs & ots), Open Presentation (oxp & otp), Open Draw (oxd & otd), Open Formula (oxf), Open Master (oxg) and Open Html (oth).

These files appear to have the same structure as the normal OOo formats (zip files containing xml files), with basically the same elements. The only differences I can see is that they conatain an extra folder, called "Thumbnails" contains a small png immage of the first page of the document, and a text file called "mimetypes".

Does anyone know the reason for the change, and in what way these formats are meant to be better than the current ones?

Also, I've noticed a file extension clash between Nokia phone ringtones and Open Text templates, which both use the .ott extension.


Last edited by Ed on Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael A. Kearsley
OOo Advocate
OOo Advocate


Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 390
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:00 am    Post subject: Re: New file formats Reply with quote

I don't know about the differences in file format between the 2, but I do know that with only a 3 character extension to indicate filetypes there is probably no possible extension that doesn't get used by some prior application.

So far as the new names go - the format is actual developed by OASIS which is an external body to OpenOffice.org and the old names and extensions could give the impression to people that they were proprietorial whereas the new XML ones weren't starting with OOo 1.0\Star Office 6.0.

Ed wrote:
I know it's been mentioned before, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.

In the latest developer build of OOo (680m49), the default file formats have been changed to Open Text (oxt aqnd ott), Open Spreadsheet (oxs & ots), Open Presentation (oxp & otp), Open Draw (oxd & otd), Open Formula (oxf), Open Master (oxg) and Open Html (oth).

These files appear to have the same structure as the normal OOo formats (zip files containing xml files), with basically the same elements. The only differences I can see is that they conatain an extra folder, called "Thumbnails" contains a small png immage of the first page of the document, and a text file called "mimetypes".

Does anyone know the reason for the change, and in what way these formats are meant to be better than the current ones?

Also, I've noticed a file extension clash between Nokia phone ringtones and Open Text templates, which both use the .ott extension.


Last edited by Michael A. Kearsley on Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DannyB
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 3991
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:39 am    Post subject: Re: New ifle formats Reply with quote

Michael A. Kearsley wrote:
the format is actual developed by OASIS which is an external body to OpenOffice.org and the old names and extensions could give the impression to people that they were proprietorial whereas the new XML ones weren't starting with OOo 1.0\Star Office 6.0.


I was under the impression that OASIS merely adopted the formats, but did not develop them. Similarly, KOffice (of KDE fame) also adopted the same formats as their native document format.
_________________
Want to make OOo Drawings like the colored flower design to the left?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael A. Kearsley
OOo Advocate
OOo Advocate


Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 390
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:45 am    Post subject: Re: New file formats Reply with quote

According to what I read on OASIS the actual specifications for the OOo XML formats are being set by a technical committee that is part of OASIS - apparently the main members and sponsors of the committee are Sun Microsystems and Boeing, although there are also some people listed as individuals and someone representing some organisation called Blast Radius Inc, someone from The National Archives of Australia and also one from Society of Biblical Literature; Sun Microsystems chair the committee:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office

DannyB wrote:


I was under the impression that OASIS merely adopted the formats, but did not develop them. Similarly, KOffice (of KDE fame) also adopted the same formats as their native document format.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fedetxf
OOo Enthusiast
OOo Enthusiast


Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 119
Location: La Plata, Argentina

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:05 am    Post subject: The reason Reply with quote

The reson for the change is make it automatically interoperable with any other application (StarOffice, Koffice, whetever) that supports OASIS file format. They changed the xml doctype (I think) and changed the extension to make it clear the format is different.

Here's an explanation
http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/fileIO/FileFormatNames.sxw

Don't save things in the new format in the current release, as they say it may change in the short future. Wait for the beta.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DannyB
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 3991
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That spec is interesting.

It says...
the spec wrote:
The OASIS Open Office TC uses the OOo format that is used by OOo 1.0 / OOo 1.1.x / SO 6.0 / SO 7 as basis for its work. OASIS Open Office XML will be very similar to that format.

The OOo and the OASIS Open Office formats are not compatible because the XML namespace URIs used in both formats to uniquely identify the files as either OOo or as OASIS Open Office files obviously have to be different. This for itself has the consequence that application prepared to read OOo file won't read OASIS Open Office file and vice versa.

Due this incompatibility SO 8 and OOo 2.0 will use new file extensions and file names in the UI for the default file format which is will be OASIS Open Office XML and offers an export into the previous OOo 1.0, OOo 1.1.x / SO 6.0 / SO 7 format. Furthermore a patch for OOo 1.x and SO 7 will be provided to add reading support for the new file format.
For detailed information about the file format transition, please see the following specification:
http://staroffice-doc.germany.sun.com:8080/Teams/StarOffice_Applications/Technical_Architect/documents/Q/transition.sxw


So it would appear that OASIS bases their format upon OOo / StarOffice. It also appears that OOo / SO will use the OASIS formats. So perhaps there has been some shift in who actually "blesses" the standard XML format? SO / OOo no longer just unilaterally create a format, but must participate in developing the standard format? This seems to fit the reasons explained for the name changes to the file extensions.
_________________
Want to make OOo Drawings like the colored flower design to the left?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bodhiopolis
General User
General User


Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:08 pm    Post subject: Re: The reason Reply with quote

fedetxf wrote:
The reson for the change is make it automatically interoperable with any other application (StarOffice, Koffice, whetever) that supports OASIS file format. They changed the xml doctype (I think) and changed the extension to make it clear the format is different.

Here's an explanation
http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/fileIO/FileFormatNames.sxw


This document states on page 10 that the new file extensions are going to be:
Writer .oot
Calc .oos
Draw .ood
Impress .oop

However, individuals in this forum and elsewhere are seeing .oxt and .oxs and so on when they install the latest builds of OpenOffice.org.

I checked the official OASIS Open Office Spec 1.0 (drafted March 2004) and it contains no information about file name extensions.

What's the official word on this matter?

Bodhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cybb20
Super User
Super User


Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 1569
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know why but I like the old ones more Rolling Eyes .
Maybe it's just cause I am used to them.

Christian
_________________
- Knowledge is Power -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael A. Kearsley
OOo Advocate
OOo Advocate


Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 390
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:35 am    Post subject: Re: The reason Reply with quote

The minutes of meetings of the committee mention there having been discussions on what the new file extensions should be:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200404/msg00033.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200408/msg00012.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200408/msg00018.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200408/msg00004.html

bodhiopolis wrote:
fedetxf wrote:
The reson for the change is make it automatically interoperable with any other application (StarOffice, Koffice, whetever) that supports OASIS file format. They changed the xml doctype (I think) and changed the extension to make it clear the format is different.

Here's an explanation
http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/fileIO/FileFormatNames.sxw


This document states on page 10 that the new file extensions are going to be:
Writer .oot
Calc .oos
Draw .ood
Impress .oop

However, individuals in this forum and elsewhere are seeing .oxt and .oxs and so on when they install the latest builds of OpenOffice.org.

I checked the official OASIS Open Office Spec 1.0 (drafted March 2004) and it contains no information about file name extensions.

What's the official word on this matter?

Bodhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
probe1
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 2560
Location: Chonburi Thailand Asia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is NOT an official statement (as I'm not a part of OOo development), just a word from an observer of the different lists:
AFAIK the actual used extensions are temporary, they should change to the *.ooX extensions when the 2.0.0 product gets live.
There were a cause mentioned (file format under development?), but I've forgotten....
The new file format will be promoted / explained by the marketing project prior to the release, as I understood their postings.
HTH
_________________
Cheers
Winfried
My Macros
DateTime2 extension: insert date, time or timestamp, formatted to your needs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gabor
Super User
Super User


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 610
Location: Hungary (E-Europe)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:26 am    Post subject: disgusting Reply with quote

This whole procedure is simply disgusting to say the least.

I am not ashamed to confess that I turned towards OOo and much before that towards StarOffice5.2 for simple financial reasons: in this country a box version of MS Office would have cost half may monthly income or more. However, I liked them too, but always had the feeling that the developers have just one thing in mind: competition with MS. And they are very bad at that.

For in case of competition there should be NO learning curve at all, the program should be able to perform EACH and every act the competitor is able to perform, it should perform MORE than that and it should NOT be unable to perform anything the competitor is able to.

Now, these three demands are not fulfilled, neither of them -- and now comes what has so many times been called names in case of MS: that newer versions are made different just for one single reason, namely that users of former versions should be unable to read anything written in newer versions and thereby they be forsed to by new ones.
I did not read the whole dcument referred to above, just the beginning.

Quote:
Quote:
New extensions are used to be able to divide the new from the old format and to prevent loading file with new format in an earlier released OOo 1.1. The new file names are the same regardless of the product vendor. So OOo and SO files are called the same.
(emphasis added by me)

I do not doubt that just the contrary may also stay among the words somewhere, but this is very clear cut here. A dirty trick from those, who do not give a damn about those using this product, their expectations, the ease of use, the compatibility, the features needed.

From those
who have turned out to be unable to produce a compatible rich text format (remember the pictures and the margins!)
who have kept sticking to the stupid find and replace feature with the (for everyday users!) idiotic regexp system,
who still have not incorporated the existing macro produced by and able person here, who do not see with their dreaming eyes the ancient Alt key and do not make it usable by default,
who have not still incorporated the Altkey macro which does exist,
who have not still incorporated the document converter produced by and able person here even though that is the only existing and easy-to-use batch convert facility,
who created or use an overcomplicated whatsoever-spell dictionary system even for the custom dictionary although the users have been crying for ages for a simple text format,
who have not still incorporated the existing macro created by an able person here,

BUT the very same heros, semi-gods, gods now declare from their Olympian heights that old versions should not be able to read the new versions.

They could have found fairly enough parts to improve without drastic changes, all the more so since neither version of this program had or has been perfect even on its own level.
Of course no one should complain if he uses someting free.
But also no one should be boasting if he is unable to perform a perfect job.

Since I did not come richer I will have to use this program in the future as well. But I am now getting disgusted by the makers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael A. Kearsley
OOo Advocate
OOo Advocate


Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 390
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:46 am    Post subject: Re: disgusting Reply with quote

The plan apparently is that OOo 2.0 will still be able to read and save in the older formats and that a freely downloadable addon will be made available for OOo 1.x to enable it to handle the new formats so I don't quite see what you are complaining about.

Inevitably file formats change over time as the applications change - new ways are found of doing things that work better and produce smaller files and extra features are added to the applications that require an addition to the original format - it's just progress that's all.

Gabor wrote:
This whole procedure is simply disgusting to say the least.

BUT the very same heros, semi-gods, gods now declare from their Olympian heights that old versions should not be able to read the new versions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
probe1
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 2560
Location: Chonburi Thailand Asia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gabor:
Don't worry.
The switch to the new file format is not to bust users, it has political reasons: to use an (new) standard file format, which other applications will easily understand.
There will be filters for 1.1.x versions of OOo, so that users of this version are able to read documents of OOo 2. And OOo 2 has the ability to save in old formats, too.
This is clearly not an action to "sell" you an upgrade version, which only eliminates some bugs.

As for competition comparison:
I don't think so.
There are clearly some ways in which I like OOo more than M$O: think of crashes! Or, not so cynical, think of well organized concept of hierarchical styles.
And because M$O does something one way is NO reason, that OOo should do it the same way. Maybe there is a learning curve, but you have done it before - you can do it again.
As for StarOffice: haven't seen a version since OS/2 5.2, but: what's so bad to get paid for having added features, filters, cliparts etc. Sorry for the price in Hungary - but complaints should go to SUN.
_________________
Cheers
Winfried
My Macros
DateTime2 extension: insert date, time or timestamp, formatted to your needs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cybb20
Super User
Super User


Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 1569
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No need to worry Gabor Smile
OOo will still be free and that's the main thing.

Christian
_________________
- Knowledge is Power -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gabor
Super User
Super User


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 610
Location: Hungary (E-Europe)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:59 pm    Post subject: free Reply with quote

Yes, it is free now. I am not sure it will remain so. Do you remember the story of StarOffice 5.x?

Sun kept shouting into the world how nice a bunch of guys they are and then... all of a sudden SO 6 came out in pay mode, and free SO ceased to exist. OOo is a great work, yes, but it is great because of these forums and the people adding the best of their knowledge free. Shall I name the dozen who do it on an extremely high level? Because I would not be able to name the probably thosands who are asking for help - many of them not because they are lazy to read the help files but because much of the help files are good for nothing or do not exist or the functions themselves do not exist.

But please let us not be mistaken! What else could be lying behind a project supported by Sun like money? And big money at that. I do not think that all those who are developing (are they really?!) the already existing program do so without payment. Of course I cannot prove it but I am pretty sure that they make a living on that. That is no problem and I hope they are making a good living on that. But anybody who makes a living on anything (on a regular basis) tries everything he can to make it last longer. And is likely and willing to create non-existent problems.

Yes, the stylist is a nice trick. Powerful, yes. But completely useless (because of it complicated nature) for anybody who creates, or works with less then a book, mostly e.g. documents of 1 or 2 pages. And by whom was the add-on PincOO created? By an able person on these forums. Have new versions of OOo come out sice the macro was published? Yes. Has it been incorporated? No. And here we are: improvement of the imperfect - no, creation of a different imperfect - yes. That is the way of moneymaking.

You are all kind to try to reassure me of the benefits. Thank you, really. And I would not even say that your are not right. But it is not me, it is a theory, a principle. Of course, we may think otherwise. But in my opinoin something should be perfect on its own level and well usable for some years before a basically reconstructed version should come out. And just try to check my list of the non-integrated features. They are perhaps not so very unimportant and neglectable features if you check who contributed the solutions on these forums. They happen to belong to the best trained and highly practiced people here. I do not think they, however helpful persons they may be, would have wasted their time on those solutions if they had thought them unnecessary or superfluous. (And I mentioned mostly writer-affiliated ones because they fall into the field where I am working.)

I have been reading these forums fairly long and I do see that many times the same problems come up again and again, problems which should not come up at all because the should be "ab ovo" solved. But they are not solved at the peak of Olymp, carefully developed into a stronghold by the labyrinth of the monster of Issuezilla.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    OOoForum.org Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group