Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WebODF: JavaScript Open Document Format Editor Deemed Stable

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the google-docs-for-the-rest-of-us dept.

Open Source 91

oever (233119) writes with news that WebODF (an Open Document Format editor written entirely using Javascript and natively rendering the XML document using CSS) 0.5.0 has been released, and the developers are declaring this release stable enough for every day use. TheMukt chides Google for not supporting the OpenDocument Format well and claims that the newly released WebODF 0.5.0 in combination with ownCloud is the answer to this deficiency. A WebODF developer blog highlights all the goodies in the first WebODF release where the text editor is considered stable and made available as an easy to use component. These include extensive benchmarking, unit testing, and advanced HTML5 techniques to give the editor a native feel. There's also touch screen support, and better support for real-time collaborative editing. A demo shows off a few of the features.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shouldn't it be 1.0.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368423)

Why is the major version number zero?

Shouldn't it be 1.0.0 (2)

Sean White (2988829) | about 4 months ago | (#47368481)

My guess is that while you can use it and get work done it isn't quite up to the feature set they had in mind for a version 1

Re:Shouldn't it be 1.0.0 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368521)

the niggers are outraged. being imaginary virtual property this cannot be robbed and stolen from somebody. this deprives the ghetto of its chief activity. racism!

Re:Shouldn't it be 1.0.0 (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 4 months ago | (#47370837)

Maybe but my guess is that the people who run that project disagree with the idea that "0.0" should be the version assigned to the first line of code and "1.0" should be the first version deemed stable and ready for general use.

I agree with that kind of numbering so I agree with the GP in this case. I think software statuses are easier to understand when people conform to the 0.0/1.0 convention.

Everyone gets to number their software any way they want, and everyone else gets to gripe about it if they don't like it.

Re:Shouldn't it be 1.0.0 (1)

VVelox (819695) | about 4 months ago | (#47370979)

This is actually a very bad assumption. Lots of software start off with the major version being zero as zero indexing stuff is extremely common when it comes to programming and it only gets bumped when there is a non-backwards compatible change.

Wow! (2)

davids-world.com (551216) | about 4 months ago | (#47368443)

This is fast and responsive. Does it avoid long-standing Word problems, such as figures that jump away from captions, paragraphs that adopt the adjacent style just because you're moving them around, and the like? For professional writing, I'll stick to LaTeX for now. For collaborative writing, something like this could be nice (and improve on half-baked solutions like the editor in OneDrive (very slow) or Google Doc (not word-compatible). So, I think this would have to be able to export / import Word docs seamlessly, due to business pressure everywhere...

Re:Wow! (1)

davids-world.com (551216) | about 4 months ago | (#47368457)

No "track changes", as it seems. :-(

Re:Wow! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368621)

In collaborative mode as used in ownCloud, each document edit is stored as an operation such as AddImage, AddText, MoveCursor etc. (WebODF implements Operation Transformation for editing) With this stack of operations and the original document, any intermediate state of the document can be recreated. There is currently in WebODF no method for displaying changes in a single document, but it's straightforward to show different versions of a document side-by-side in your website or application.

Re:Wow! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368537)

WebODF uses OpenDocument Format (ODF) as the runtime document model. That means that there is 0 (zero) data conversion when loading and saving a document. It does not support OOXML, but it could load an OOXML document if it was converted to ODF. It is not clear that the same approach (style unchanged XML with CSS) could work with OOXML. Have a look with your browsers 'Inspect Element' function in the demo. The DOM is ODF XML, not HTML.

A lot of work was done on responsiveness. A mischievous edit bot [github.com] is used to do heavy editing testing and a detailed benchmark [wordpress.com] is available for every build.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368881)

For professional writing, I'll stick to LaTeX for now.

Why, tell me, do you use a typesetting system for writing? (ducks!) Seriously, LaTeX is awesome but it only typesets, you need a good text editor to write your "creation".

Re:Wow! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47370213)

Why, tell me, do you use a typesetting system for writing? (ducks!)

Ducks? Why not guillemots? ;-)

Impressive start! (1)

dwheeler (321049) | about 4 months ago | (#47371975)

This is a really impressive start. It's not done, but they don't claim it is. It's responsive and does quite a bit.

does it support (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368451)

Does it support markdown?

Re:does it support (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368753)

No. But conversion from markdown to odf and back shouldn't be too hard to write. WebODF is a library so you can use it in an app where you add markdown support.

Fonts? (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 4 months ago | (#47368479)

Very nice. I just wonder does it use fonts off the web server, fonts on the client, or both? (And are any of the font license issuers freaked out about the former?)

.

Re:Fonts? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368577)

It can use fonts embedded in the file and fonts provided via css. Fonts provided via css can be stored on the server or, when WebODF is used in a desktop or mobile application, on the local machine. There is not really anything for font license issuers to freak out about. PDF can embed fonts too as can OOXML. Providing fonts via css is common on the web these days and of course one should check the license when doing so.

As long as you don't use page breaks (2, Interesting)

watermark (913726) | about 4 months ago | (#47368545)

It's stable and ready for every day use, as long as you don't need page breaks. I have a 3 page odt containing page breaks and WebODF just throws all of the text and images at the bottom of the first page.

How is this ready for every day use without supporting something as basic as page breaks? Page breaks go back to Word 1.beforeiwasborn

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368659)

Adding page breaks is on the to do list. Here is technical preview [webodf.org] of pagination. Displaying properly is part of that work. Help, code or finances, are welcome to make this work land sooner.

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47373521)

Then it is not ready for everyday use. This is spam and now you even tell people to give you money...

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 4 months ago | (#47369195)

Page breaks in word processors existed long before Word.

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47370281)

So, page breaks broke your pages? Sounds about right!

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (2, Informative)

VVelox (819695) | about 4 months ago | (#47371123)

I actually would not consider this ready for every day use. It does not even play nicely with what I have at home as the following are broken.

1: It can't handle multiple columns.
2: No real support for index work.
3: Can't create tables or modify number of columns/rows.
4: No header/footer support.
5: No footnote support.
6: Embedded images tend to overlap text.
7: The equation stuff is not supported.

That said this is still bad ass and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47371693)

Thanks for your frank observations. You are right on all points for the version we released today, with one caveat: if you open a file that contains any of the features you mention you can edit all of the text and save the document back. Because WebODF leaves the XML intact, you can then continue again in your favorite full ODF editor.
Our main objective is to keep your document intact. We cannot delay releasing until we have matched Microsoft Office or LibreOffice in features, but we want to be inoperable with these programs from the start and especially we want the user to never have a headache about lost data.

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47372361)

...We cannot delay releasing until we have matched Microsoft Office or LibreOffice in features, but we want to be inoperable with these programs from the start...

Inoperable or interoperable?

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47372415)

yes, interoperable of course.

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47374017)

the other one would be far easier to achieve

Re:As long as you don't use page breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47373923)

ah yes the old, "my feature isn't supported therefore it's completely useless" fallacy, never heard that one before.. nope..

Let's put all Knowledge into the Cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368547)

...so that our NSA overlords have it on a silver plate. And for god's sake, don't encrypt. Only terrozists do that !!!!!!!

yes! fFp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368581)

BSD aadi3ts, flame have left in

javascriptards (0, Flamebait)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47368587)

Why is there this trendy craze to rewrite everything in a badly designed browser scripting language? There are far superior solutions in better languages for every one of these javascript craplications

Re:javascriptards (5, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#47368651)

Because modern browsers are the closest thing we've ever gotten to an actual cross-platform ecosystem with an efficient distribution system baked in. While not 100% by any mean, we're pretty close to a point where you write an app for Chrome, and it will just work in other browsers, including IE back a few versions. You have to make sure not to use certain features, but you don't need annoying abstraction libraries like you would in native code to support *nix vs Windows, nevermind mobile operating systems.

And because of that, the ecosystem around the language is blooming, and the code written can then be used in other environments, like server/client (node.js) and data (mongo). The language sucks, but what was made around it is blissful.

Re:javascriptards (-1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47368779)

browsers are the most horribly insecure malware and privacy destroying portals invented yet, all manner of software development idioms cobbled together, badly.

node.js is poorly designed for scalability, the miserable hacks being invented to address that are just laughable.

Re:javascriptards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368855)

One day you will get a real job and that app you just spent a month making the CEO will like and want to run from his IPad at the airport.

You can either learn to program IOS, or just do it in javascript and it will still work when he decides next week to look at it from his Android phone. While things like Citrix can work for this, that crappy javascript works without plugins and can work better.

Re:javascriptards (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about 4 months ago | (#47369093)

If node.js doesn't fit your production needs don't use it ( if you can't figure out how to harness a nonblocking architecture that is ). However there is a reason why node.js is gaining popularity everyday. If you want a solid scalable frontend development platform use node.js. FFS use node.js everyday!

Re:javascriptards (1)

Sique (173459) | about 4 months ago | (#47369585)

Nevertheless, it works[tm]. The good has two arch-enemies, and both are winning almost each battle: the better, and the good enough.

Re:javascriptards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47370923)

Those are the growing pains for any platform as large as the web. Not to mention that it's evolving much faster than any other platform of comparable size, so every year these smarmy comments seem more and more like sour grapes; "Wah! I spent my life developing in one ecosystem, and now I'll have to learn something I don't want to learn! Wah!"

Re:javascriptards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47372919)

node.js is poorly designed for scalability, the miserable hacks being invented to address that are just laughable.

Protip: If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, vaguely criticize everything mainstream.

Re:javascriptards (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 4 months ago | (#47368995)

Thank you for a non-smartass answer.

Re:javascriptards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368693)

Because THE CLOUD is so wonderful. It has no issues with security, privacy...Nothing! And best of all, your data is in the hands of someone else who can make money off of it!

Re:javascriptards (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 4 months ago | (#47368713)

Why is there this trendy craze to rewrite everything in a badly designed browser scripting language? ...

imo, it's being pushed by the malware people. They want to have a mess of bad code 'out there' running in everyone's browser. It makes the attack surface so much larger.....

Re:javascriptards (2)

Albanach (527650) | about 4 months ago | (#47368757)

Are you serious? The applications exist for when you have access only to a computer and a browser. it doesn't matter what operating system it runs, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what browser it running. It doesn't matter that you have no admin rights. If you need to edit a document, it should just work.

Re:javascriptards (1, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47368823)

And if I only have a computer, and python/libraries installed I could run a python program (substitute any other language platform for where you said 'browser).

you have no point.

browsers still aren't equivalent, are very insecure and are targeted by privacy invaders, malware producers, etc.

Re:javascriptards (2)

narcc (412956) | about 4 months ago | (#47368871)

Maybe. Which version of python does your program run under? They have a lot of trouble maintaining compatibility between minor version numbers.

Further, everyone has a browser. Not everyone has python. Fewer still have the random version of python you need to run your program.

Re:javascriptards (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47368901)

which version of firefox do you run under? which plugins did your current version of firefox throw out?

again, you have no point. same issues (in fact more) exist with browsers as with any language platform

also, bet your shit doesn't run on the browser on my son's non-smart net10 phone

Re:javascriptards (5, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | about 4 months ago | (#47369085)

You're drowning. Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with your uninformed opinions. JS has been impressively stable, and cross-browser issues have been negligible for a long time now -- none of which, I'll remind you, have been language implementation compatibility issues.

Listening to you, one would think that the web barely functioned, with users needing multiple browsers, and various versions of each, to use a handful of sites. That's clearly not the case.

Here in reality, the web is developing nicely in to a convenient application platform. JS is an impressive language, far more sophisticated and capable than the alternatives you've suggested. (New and constructor functions were the big mistakes, leading to all sorts of confusion, and later hate, for those who didn't take the time to learn the language before using it. Luckily, they're unnecessary. Try actually learning the language. I'll bet your opinion will quickly change.)

also, bet your shit doesn't run on the browser on my son's non-smart net10 phone

I'll bet your python program doesn't run either. What was your point again? That you don't like JS or that the web is incapable of being used exactly how it's being used?

Re:javascriptards (2)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47369255)

I would say your original question was answered, and relatively civilly. Saying that the respondent has no point seems a bit petty. The point was made, and quite ably. Your counterpoint is also clear enough, and readers can decide how much merit and validity it has.

I am not convinced, either, that JavaScript is an elegant language, but I am less convinced that it is crap than I was was back when it referred to nothing more than an array of incompatible pidgn dialects. The fact remains that its greatest strength is its ubiquity as a lingua franca.

It is difficult not to be favorably impressed that a resource has been written in JavaScript which shows so much promise.

Re:javascriptards (1, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 4 months ago | (#47368977)

Seriously? It doesn't matter if you have admin rights? And thus no means of local storage? So we should all push our documents out 'on the cloud'? So Google or Microsoft has control of everything we do? We should push them out onto 'the cloud' running binaries on machines we don't have admin rights to, giving out passwords each time we do?

I like local storage. It goes beyond liking, actually. I expect local storage. Crap like this just makes it easier for software publishers and 'services' to eliminate the need for, and thus the access to, local storage.

Plus, dinks who write web pages aren't programmers. No matter how many 'script' tools they heft around.

Re:javascriptards (1)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#47369107)

HTML5 local storage. Not useful for large documents, but more than enough for most purposes.

Re:javascriptards (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47370441)

Doesn't it have as much local storage as you give to it?

Re:javascriptards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369211)

Did you read the summary or look at the app? This has nothing to do with the cloud, nothing to do with Google and nothing to do with Microsoft.

It's Javascript. It runs locally. Just because it's inside your browser doesn't mean either the app or the document has to be 'in the cloud'.

Re:javascriptards - OwnCloud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47370215)

So what is OwnCloud? It is prominently mentioned all over the announcement/blog. Although I have not had time to look it up yet, the name certainly implies some kind of cloud service....

Re:javascriptards - OwnCloud? (1)

oever (233119) | about 4 months ago | (#47370337)

ownCloud is one of the projects that uses WebODF. It is software to install a personal cloud on your own hardware. There are also native Windows applications using WebODF. There's also a Firefox OS app [firefox.com] to view ODF documents on your phone.

ownCloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47371521)

...is a way to serve your data to NSA if you don't want to serve it via google docs or Office 365. They use heartbleed or something to get your docs.

Re:javascriptards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368767)

1. Pointy haired managers like JS now that they know it is hot
2. Entry level programmers can be JS 'experts' in days
3. All you need is a browser, text editor, and some JS libraries
4. People are willing to pay a lot of money to have all the above right now

Re:javascriptards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368797)

It is also easier to manage. In a corporation it is more expensive if you have to worry about software licenses and versions for numerous employees it is much easier to only have to make sure that they are running a modern webbrowser, and then control a single point of corporate approved software on the webserver. The browser becomes the thin client, without demanding the users to use hardware based thin clients. For telecommuting it is a win.

Re:javascriptards (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47368947)

or really? Microsoft forces upgrade and whole place stops working. or Oracle's recent java fixes break the API. or, everyone needs flash upgrade and some other plugin from mars. IE required for this, firefox for that....I deal with that nonsense daily.

Thin clients (the hardware boxes) have the same issues, funny some of the ones from even three years ago can't be upgraded to handle current "standards"

Re: javascriptards (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 4 months ago | (#47371395)

This is no longer the trend.

This is why Mozilla and friends have been pushing for web standards the last 12 years or so.

Today we can develop scalable, web-based applications and only require a modern browser. IE9 made great strides and IE10 is even better from what I hear.

Today I can develop something in Firefox, test it across the board (Opera, Safari, Chrome/Chromium, IE, mobile browsers) and they usually just work. No plugins, no bullshit.

Also, any business with more than 25 computers should be using Windows Server on a Domain to enforce upgrade policies. As in, test the updates on a dev box, and push updates if there are no issues.

TL:DR, your point is moot in todays modern web.

Re: javascriptards (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47372813)

you are funny, talking about "the trend"

the trend hasn't "arrived". that promised land is just a pipe dream. reality is applications fail across browsers in testing. plugins are still here and required for general business use.

your precious Windows Server is just going to break shit across the enterprise now and again, I watch that happen often.

Re: javascriptards (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 4 months ago | (#47381217)

I own a company that builds custom web-based applications for businesses. Certainly not fortunte 100 companies, but businesses with a dozen or more users doing their job with the system 9-5, Mon-Fri.

Personally I don't use Windows at all. Not sure what the snarky comment about Windows Server was all about. I'm not the IT person for these companies, I am simply familiar with the features offered by it and have seen it in place at most of the businesses we deal with.

For the past two years, targeting IE9 has worked well for us. I've convinced some businesses to use Firefox or Chrome instead, as they were still on WinXP.

We don't use any Plugins, and stick to standards as best we can. We also avoid flashy, animated crap. Its business, not TV.

We also build general public stuff. We dropped support for IE7 over a year ago, its made things a lot easier. We're still discussing when to drop support for IE8 in these projects.

Well, I'm glad he's doing all right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47368963)

Was the developer previously considered unstable mentally or physically? Either way, I'm glad he's doing better.

Yippie... (3, Funny)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#47368973)

Because the general complaint about OpenOffice/LibreOffice was that Java made it too fast. /s

Next up! A web browser written in Javascript.

Re:Yippie... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369137)

webkit.js: http://trevorlinton.github.io/

On a serious note: WebODF started as a C++ extension to Webkit. It turned out that the logic for the document editor was not the performance bottleneck and might as well be written in javascript. This sped up development a lot. Naturally, C++ has better type checking than javascript but by using closure compiler this can be partially alleviated. WebODF is 100% annotated with type information.

Re:Yippie... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47370515)

It gets better: Chrome is going to have portions of it (the DOM, notably) rewritten in JS to improve performance further. ;-)

Re:Yippie... (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#47369183)

Next up! A web browser written in Javascript.

No need to wait, it's already here [google.com] .

Re:Yippie... (1)

Ndymium (1282596) | about 4 months ago | (#47369199)

Neither OpenOffice or LibreOffice are written in Java though, they are mostly C++. Java is only used for the HSQLDB and some wizards and parts in Base.

Re:Yippie... (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#47370487)

Imagine how much slower it'd be written fully in Java...

Re:Yippie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369213)

That's old news - http://badassjs.com/post/73526882798/webkit-js-its-happening-for-real-with-emscriptens
I know, I know, not technically written in javascript, just compiled into javascript.

Re:Yippie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369281)

Already done. Look up webkit.js

Re:Yippie... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369315)

In Safari the JavaScript anything running for a few seconds on a webpage is compiled with the same LLVM compiler that I use to make executable code for C, producing executable native code (google for "safari ftl"). If anything the resulting executable is faster than all but the most hand optimized C code because the higher-level non-pointer based language offers guarantees that a pointer based language doesn't offer, meaning the compiler is able to make better optimizations because it's more aware of how the JavaScript code can be called than C code where suddenly the user can just do some pointer arithmetic and break encapsulation.

This is somewhat different to Java's JIT compilation, in that JIT is "just in time". Safari actually has four levels of "compilation" from "interpreted" right the way through to the LLVM stuff which it switches to on the fly the longer you're using the code and the longer time it's had to do the compilation.

Re:Yippie... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369865)

The official Webkit blog [webkit.org] has a post about it.

Re:Yippie... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47372945)

If anything the resulting executable is faster than all but the most hand optimized C code because the higher-level non-pointer based language offers guarantees that a pointer based language doesn't offer, meaning the compiler is able to make better optimizations because it's more aware of how the JavaScript code can be called than C code where suddenly the user can just do some pointer arithmetic and break encapsulation.

That's the same claim that everyone's been making for ages. It's unlikely to be true for the same reasons.

Your comment about aliasing are I think misplaced: javascript has references which are equivalent to immutable pointers. Simply having pointers at all in any form (including references) causes trouble.

C and C++ do a lot of stuff with value semantics, rather than reference semtnatics. That avoids the aliasing problem in a lot of cases. C and C++ also do a lot of stack allocation which not only is almost free (cheaper than any other allocation scheme) it's also easier to reason about alaising.

Finally JS is a GC languages and GCs have a fairly substantial memory overhead compared to determinstic systems, which means more cache trashing. You can avoid this by reusing objects, but that's delving right into hand optimizing.

I've seen the "it should be faster than C" claim many times over the years for things such as Java, Javascript, Haskell, OCaml and so on (curiously FORTAN proponents, which often is in fact faster or at least as fast never bother with this claim). Ocasionally, in some comparison one of the microbenchmarks is almost as fast in a trivial inner loop (e.g. naive matrix multiplication).

Somehow it never seems to pan out overall. Though I gather that the Javascript Quake II in a browser on a modern PC has now got to the stage where it can beat my long dead P133 with its Riva 128 graphics card! I don't think it would have beaten my frag buddie's rather spiffier P233 with a Voodoo2 card.

This is a killer (2)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about 4 months ago | (#47368981)

Looking forward to see this build into web mail solutions.

Re:This is a killer (1)

oever (233119) | about 4 months ago | (#47369217)

Zarafa [zarafa.com] and Kolab [mykolab.com] already use WebODF for displaying ODF attachments, but not yet for editing. There's also an android app that handles displaying ODF documents by registering to handle the ODF mimetypes.

I tried it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47369201)

I couldn't figure out a way to add a table of contents. Otherwise it seemed pretty decent.

Frustrating (1)

jimbrooking (1909170) | about 4 months ago | (#47370017)

Potentially of interest if there was a shred of setup/implementation information, after an hour of looking, following false trails and futzing I gave up.

Re:Frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47370177)

What did you need besides the information available here?
Getting started [webodf.org]
HOWTO-wodotexteditor.md [github.com]

Cntrl+Click to follow link? (1)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 4 months ago | (#47370145)

Do I open up my Galaxy Note 3's pen context to perform a Microsoft Windows function or do I just use terminal to cntrl+ click?

Re:Cntrl+Click to follow link? (1)

oever (233119) | about 4 months ago | (#47370273)

Are you talking about writing text in the webodf editor demo? If you cannot input text on your Galaxy Note 3 there, we might be able to help if you file an issue [github.com] .

Re:Cntrl+Click to follow link? (1)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 4 months ago | (#47371789)

Following the link to their demo provides an explanation of their product. At the bottom of their explanation it has a link to their website. To follow the link to their website they use a windows editor context to press the cntrl key to follow the link. My joke was about an OS specific context to perform a simple function.

Doesn't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47370723)

Doesn't work on my Nexus 7 in Chrome or Firefox

Re:Doesn't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47370835)

Could you be more specific? I assume you're talking about the editor at http://webodf.org/demo What part of the demo does not work?

zotero (2)

spasm (79260) | about 4 months ago | (#47370833)

Link zotero to this and you'll have a solution academic collaborators have been looking for since the beginning of word processing.. Seriously, we need a collaborative writing platform which allows multiple authors to add citations.

Re:zotero (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47372085)

To be honest, I don't think ODF is optimal for this. To me it still feels like "moderate progress within the bounds of the law". You could easily - well, more easily than many other things - make a collaborative, real-time editable "Authornet", but it wouldn't probably have much in common with local-file-based editors. It would be more like some kind of a distributed object database. (I think the VPRI people are actually heading roughly in this direction.)

Re:zotero (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47372963)

Link zotero to this and you'll have a solution academic collaborators have been looking for since the beginning of word processing.. Seriously, we need a collaborative writing platform which allows multiple authors to add citations.

Well, IME a good VCS and latex work remarkably well for that task. Actually, having used Zotero, I am honestly astonished how much time people are prepared to burn in order to not learn latex. You'd get parity if not payback in effort just on the first paper. After that, it's a net win.

Re:zotero (1)

davids-world.com (551216) | about 4 months ago | (#47373243)

Generally, something like Dropbox and LaTeX work fine - unless you have two people editing the same file at the same time. Then, any VCS or something like Dropbox fail miserably. I have tried https://www.writelatex.com/ [writelatex.com] , but of course I'd like to keep using my local Aquamacs instead of a web-based solution. Maybe I'll write a synchronization tool for Emacs. The issue is then that we need to integrate people who don't use Emacs...

Re:zotero (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47374421)

Generally, something like Dropbox and LaTeX work fine - unless you have two people editing the same file at the same time. Then, any VCS or something like Dropbox fail miserably.

Not that miserably: for a VCS the diff tools can sort out a lot of conflicts. The main problem is editing the same lines within the file. At that point it at least tells you there's a conflict (as opposed to the last person wins model of dropbox). But yeah at that point someone needs to fix the mess.

IME though this is a rare case. Ususally with papers the first author owns it and does most of the writing. Sometimes you can delegate out a section or two to other people if you're lucky. I've written a few things collaboratively and the number of direct conflicts I've had have been very small.

The other nice thing about a VCS is it does proper change tracking that you can't switch off. Unlike word processor change tracking which fails in the face of adversarial (or just perverse or confused) users.

Actually, I've even been on a project where for some reason the project lead decided to do the big reports in word. This is despite the project being a bunch of computer scientists and engineers who usually wrote in LaTeX. The results were, in hindsight, hilariously bad.

stable? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 4 months ago | (#47370943)

the developers are declaring this release stable enough for every day use

anyone see anything wrong with that statement?

Can you say, HUGE SECURITY HOLE (0)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 4 months ago | (#47373661)

This thing has access to my hard drive, to fucking save files!!!!

This thing will never, ever, be used anywhere I have a say about. This is ripe for someone to hook it from another page and write shit to anywhere on your hard disk that you have permission to write to. Drive By's were bad enough but now we have opened the flood gates. The script kiddies and the black hast are going to have a field day owning anyone who runs this.

The Browser is bad enough as it is with "precisely formed" URL's being able to rape your machine, and now this. Some PHB is going mandate this and the number of machines and networks jacked is going to be quite a show.

No one has been able to successfully sand box a browser. The browser was never ever supposed to be able to access the local machine directly, but in the name of the all mighty cloud we keep tearing down barrier after barrier and no one is saying anything about it, we just keep changing chairs while the band plays.

Re:Can you say, HUGE SECURITY HOLE (1)

oever (233119) | about 4 months ago | (#47373927)

The WebODF developers take security very seriously. WebODF runs in a browser and web browsers are the most battle hardened sandboxes available.

WebODF has no more access to your hard drive than any unprivileged website. If you press the icon to open a file, WebODF asks the browser to let the user pick one file. That file, and only that file that the user chose, is then passed to WebODF so it can open it. This is no different from an HTML form for uploading files. The difference is that WebODF does not need to even pass the file to a server. It is a client-side library that can parse a file purely in the browser without any network access.

If you use WebODF with a CMS, you can let the CMS decide which files WebODF has access to. When WebODF loads a document, it checks for any JavaScript present and prevents it from being executed.

WebODF is set up such that you only need a few files to run it and all those files can be hosted on your own server or placed in your own application. There is no need for any reliance on any 3rd party.

Re:Can you say, HUGE SECURITY HOLE (0)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 4 months ago | (#47374043)

Yeah that's reassuring and all. The WC3 takes security very seriously as well as do the makers of Mozilla, IE, Chrome, Opera, Safari et al. but never the less we still have drive by's, we still have machines with AV software, anti-malware, Sand Boxing software etc installed and they still get through and steal whatever they want.

Javascript is a language that scares the hell out of anyone who takes security seriously. You can shove text at any object and presto that is now executable code, oh yay!!! Your code ( yeah I looked ) is full of the convention of function( "function{}" ) and that is just as bad as PHP taking links to remote servers as parameters to functions. Do you really think this is going to survive in the wild? Really dude this is injection just waiting to happen. I applaud your cleverness, but this "software" is going to get ass raped and your reputation is going to be ruined.

There are better ways to do this. Doing this in the web browser as it currently exists is just foolish. I am building an application frame ( appFrame ) that can run actual applications free from the asshattery that is HTML and CSS.

WebODF seems to use Dojo? (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 4 months ago | (#47379677)

https://github.com/kogmbh/WebO... [github.com]

I like Dojo in part because it attempts to make all the core widgets accessible. From:
http://dojotoolkit.org/referen... [dojotoolkit.org]
"Dojo has made a serious commitment to creating a toolkit that allows the development of accessible Web applications for all users, regardless of physical abilities. The core widget set of Dojo, dijit, is fully accessible since the 1.0 release, making Dojo the only fully accessible open source toolkit for Web 2.0 development. This means that users who require keyboard only navigation, need accommodations for low vision or who use an assistive technology, can interact with the dijit widgets."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?