Challenge (Part II)

by jlundstocholm 7. May 2008 04:15

A tongue-in-cheek challenge for Mr. Rob Weir.

[code=xml]<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<office:document-content
  xmlns:office="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:office:1.0"
  xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0"
  xmlns:table="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:table:1.0"
  office:version="1.1">
  <office:body>
    <office:spreadsheet>
      <table:table table:name="Sheet1" table:protected="true" table:protection-key="8A45FB0C33667F9E33ECA007FCE4F6684DC5F242">
        <table:table-column />
        <table:table-row >
          <table:table-cell office:value-type="float" office:value="10">
            <text:p>10</text:p>
          </table:table-cell>
        </table:table-row>
        <table:table-row >
          <table:table-cell office:value-type="string">
            <text:p>
              Dear Rob Weir. Please prove by this example that ODF is an "interoperable"
              document format and tell me how a consuming application should determine if the
              user should be allowed to modify the document. I do not think that it is.
              In fact I think that your statements that ODF is a document format that
              provides interoperability are brash, irresponsible and indefensible
              pieces of bombast that you should retract.
            </text:p>
          </table:table-cell>
        </table:table-row>
      </table:table>
    </office:spreadsheet>
  </office:body>
</office:document-content>[/code] 

(and yes, one of the reasons for this post is to show off the cool syntax highlighter of this blog engine)

Wink

And could you guys please stop the bickering and let's move on to something a bit more interesting? 

Comments

5/7/2008 7:44:46 AM #

Rob Weir

That is some nice syntax coloring.  What are you using?  I think I may need to upgrade from Blogger.

In any case I think you already wrote out this one.  Protection password hashes are implementation-defined in ODF 1.0.  They will be fully defined in ODF 1.2, in a way that is compatible with existing OpenOffice documents, and which uses ISO standard hash algorithms.  

Until then, I recommend that you don't change anyone else's documents unless you are sure that it is OK with them, or unless they are a close friend.  OK?  Wink

-Rob

Rob Weir United States |

5/7/2008 3:06:58 PM #

jlundstocholm

Hi Rob,

The blog engine I am using is BlogEngine.Net . It is available from http://codeplex.com/blogengine (license: MS-RL), running on ASP.Net . The syntax-highlight did not come out-of-the-box, though. I had to do quite a bit of tweeking to get it working right.

http://www.diigo.com/user/jlundstocholm/blogengine .

And to get back on the subject - I am aware that document protection has been extended in ODF 1.2 - it is a great improvement to ODF 1.0 .

Until then, I recommend that you don't change anyone else's documents unless you are sure that it is OK with them, or unless they are a close friend. OK? Wink

Yes, well ... I'll try to implement a proof-of-concept of this logic in a few days. It will propably be a mash-up of Google Maps (for proximity), neural networks to have it decide actions on its own and Facebook API for the "good-friend"-part.

Smile

jlundstocholm Denmark |

5/8/2008 10:59:23 AM #

Jonas

Not to be grumpy or anything, but as I am color blind and don't care about your "beautiful" syntax highlighter (you could just as well have claimed the XML was highlighted with different smells and it would assist me equally as much), please don't brag too much.

PS: Have you seen my green dog?

Jonas Sweden |

5/8/2008 2:58:11 PM #

jlundstocholm

Hi Jonas,

well, as I said, the syntax highlighter was just one of the reasons for this post. The main reason was naturally Rob's challenge to Alex Brown which was, in context of the discussions between them, just as nuts as this post.

Smile

About your dog, no - I haven't seen it. We have a black cat that from time to time crosses the street where we live, but that's about it.

jlundstocholm Denmark |

Comments are closed