Notes2Self.net - All Comments

Social comments and analytics for this post

uberVU - social comments — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:24:13 GMT

This post was mentioned on Twitter by notes2self: Blog post "An update on document formats in Denmark" http://bit.ly/ceyZMi - translation of the "konklusionspapir" @glynmoody @rcweir

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

Martin Bailey — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:43:34 GMT

The final Ecma-388 is now available at the URL below, along with W3C and Relax NG schemas (addition of Relax schemas is another change in OpenXPS).

www.ecma-international.org/.../Ecma-388.htm

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

Stephen McGibbon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:52:05 GMT

Thanks Adrian.

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

Aiddy — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:19:30 GMT

Hi Wayne,

Stephen asked me to respond to the questions you posted…

There are a number of ways an implementation can distinguish between XPS and OpenXPS. Firstly, the namespace URIs are different. For example FixedDocument namespace is changed to schemas.openxps.org/.../v1.0 (D.1 XML Namespace URIs & D.3 Relationship Types of Ecma-388 covers the details [1][2]). Secondly, Ecma-388 provides explicit recommendations for the identification of OpenXPS files which differs from the conventions currently used for XPS. OpenXPS uses *.oxps for the filename extension and application/oxps for the content type (details are covered in E.1 Identification of OpenXPS Documents [2]).

There are a large number of changes between OpenXPS and XPS, and obviously Ecma-388 is the reference to use for those. The following are areas that I’ve picked out that may be relevant for you:

• Name space URI changes: see comment above. Implementations will need to understand the new namespaces

• Recommendations for identifying OpenXPS: There are now recommendations for filename extension and content type that differ from conventions used with XPS. The XML Paper Specification did not define a filename extension, Ecma-388 requires implementations not use the filename extension commonly used for XPS documents and instead recommends *.oxps.

• Improved color profile interoperability: parts of specification dealing with color profiles have been improved to remove ambiguities in the specification and improve interoperability. This primarily impacts named and N-color representations.

• HD Photo now JPEG XR: XPS included HD Photo as one of the supported image file formats. OpenXPS uses the JPEG XR specification as the reference for the file format, although this should not impact implementations.

• Removal of WCS & Print Schema Specification references: OpenXPS does not include references to the Windows Color System or Print Schema Specifications.

• X3D Support: OpenXPS adds optional support for 3D content via X3D.

• Lots of clean up

Plus probably others that I’ve missed.

It’s also worth noting that TC46 published the working issues list, you can download copies from the TC46 available documents page [2].

HTH /aiddy

[1] Last time I checked the final text of Ecma-388 wasn’t available on the Ecma web site but the final committee draft is available.

[2] www.ecma-international.org/.../TC46-availabledocs.htm

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

Stephen McGibbon — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:48:29 GMT

Wayne, sorry I missed this. I've asked a colleague and I'll post the answer here.

Regards

Stephen

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

wpatin — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:23:27 GMT

Under "Compatibility" on page 7:

"[existing] XPS and OpenXPS content can be easily distinguished, and XPS consuming implementations can be updated to support OpenXPS content with only minor modifications."

Do you have any details on how OpenXPS is distinguished from XPS, and what updates "consuming implementations" will need to make?

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

Stephen McGibbon — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:57:26 GMT

I don't know what TC46 plans in this regard Fredrik, I've asked.

TC46's members are:-

and TC46 has formal liaisons with the following ISO/IEC committees:-

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 28: Office equipment
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29: Coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34: Document Description and Processing Languages
ISO TC 130 WG2: Graphic technology – Prepress data exchange
ISO TC 171 : Document management applications

re: OpenXPS - OpenXML Paper Specification

Fredrik E. Nilsen — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:03:13 GMT

Do you know when it will be sendt to ISO?

common ground between Microsoft and the OSS community is more common than not these days...

Brent Phillips - Interoperability Blog — Wed, 20 May 2009 04:20:29 GMT

When I speak to an audience about Microsoft's partnership with Novell, I often frame the discussion around

re: Sun runs the Jerry Yang maneuver

Stephen McGibbon — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:15:25 GMT

as reflected in Sun's success right Andé?

re: Sun runs the Jerry Yang maneuver

André — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:07:43 GMT

You should know better. It is a licensing model.

Business models around software are on a different layer and may involve the use of a certain licensing model.

The most overlooked aspect of open source is that it does not require a vendor-side business model.

And of course it is a nice strategy in corporate warfare, for brand creation, outsourcing and recruitment of specially skilled workforce.

re: Inauguration streamed in Silverlight and captured in PhotoSynth

Papaya — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:09:49 GMT

Where are the specifications of Silverlight? Are they subject to patents?

re: Inauguration streamed in Silverlight and captured in PhotoSynth

André — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:07:39 GMT

<i>As part of our commitment to making this the most open inauguration in history, we’ll be streaming the swearing-in ceremony on our site using Microsoft’s Silverlight.</i>

Huuh! That's great.

I admit that the chapter of openness now needs to get rewritten as the US makes history. I wonder what the European Union might think about these progressive views.

Microsoft’s Silverlight brings the change WE need.

re: OpenOffice.Org’s “Renaissance” project

BeWuP — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:05:31 GMT

People who claim that OOo menu layout is "sooo similar" t MSO 2003 and older have to be blind. And OOo's UI looks outdated (I am not talking about looks only) and unfinished at the same time i.e. lack of some command's icons or lack of the ability to add some commands to custom toolbar. I know it's free but some chores path in OOo is making me call heavens for revenge - count number of steps to completely format a new chart in Calc for example.

re: OpenOffice.Org’s “Renaissance” project

André — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:56:48 GMT

Adobe Buzzword has implemented some fresh ideas for the user interface.

It would be a mistake for OO.org to follow Microsoft's footsteps but it was Microsoft that opened up the interface for experiments. As long as you can switch back no a conservative user interface, no problem.