Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/1/2011 6:50 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
> Barbara,
>
> First, ODF IS the ISO standard - honestly made so without the dirty
> tricks that MS used to stuff the committee and force it to approve
> something that wasn't ready to be used by anyone.

I recognize that, of course. But like it or not (and I'm definitely in the "not" camp), OOXML can 
also claim to be a "standard" after the ISO shenanigans.

> Second, MS refuses to support any ODF except the one that is actually an
> ISO standard.  That makes their version of ODF suspect as to its actual
> compatibility.

Exactly. That's why I don't recommend sending OOo/LibO ODF to MS-only shops, the XP formats are more 
interoperable. And the way MS chose to implement what is actually in the standard seems to have 
taken advantage of the details that were left unspecified to force incompatibility with existing ODF 
implementations, even if both adhered strictly to the existing ODF specification.

> I don't suggest using the same tactics on MS as it is using on Open
> Source Software.  Doing to others as they do to you is NOT a recommended
> tactic for honest people or organizations (though it's too often been
> used, in my arrogant opinion [There AIN'T no such thing as a humble
> opinion]).

Is that what you think it would be to implement the OOXML "Strict" formats? I sure don't see it that 
way -- we would simply be supporting an ISO standard, however it was arrived at. The fact that we 
could possibly do it before MS does is not "doing to others as they do to you" IMNSHO. I just think 
it would be great if LibO became the reference implementation!

> By being able to read .doc and .docx formats LO demonstrates it's
> willingness to at least reach out to MS and its customers.  Therefore,
> LO ends up being the good guy.
>
> Craig
> Tyche

Right. That's why I think it's a good move to read them. The issue is about writing the Transitional 
formats. Do you think we have to do that to claim the moral high ground?

> On 01/01/2011 03:29 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
> > On 1/1/2011 11:07 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:
> > > Hi Sveinn,
> > >
> > > > Sure, but how about conservation and readability by future generations
> > > > (when there's no more Microsoft knowledge around and nobody knows
> > > > anymore how to decrypt all the nuances of.doc + .docx files) ?
> > > Fair point.
> > >
> > > But: most users do not care.  Not exporting to Word will make it look
> > > like LibO is faulty.
> > >
> > > I have to save in MSO formats to share work with others.  At work, we
> > > have an MSO policy.
> > > While I can use whatever I like on my desktop, I have to save
> > > spreadsheets in MSO formats
> > > because Excel 07 kills ODS formulae.  If I prepare a document as ODT,
> > > the few Word 2003
> > > dies-hards complain I am refusing to inter-operate.  I do still assign
> > > student work to be
> > > submitted as either .doc or .odt and mark students down for using
> > > .docx (they failed to read
> > > the instructions).  They are also marked down for not using proper
> > > spacing and a serif font.
> > >
> > > I don't want to see the .docx format spread any further and advocate
> > > using ODT as the
> > > default.  However, not having the option to export as .doc and .docx
> > > will cause users to
> > > wonder if they want to promote LibO.
> > I don't think anybody is saying LibO should drop .doc export -- just not
> > try to export to the OOXML "Transitional" formats. In theory, MS will go
> > to OOXML "Strict" in the 2014 (or whenever) release, and that should by
> > then be a truly open format, if the comments submitted to the standards
> > committee are properly worked off. Meanwhile, exporting to the
> > "Transitional" form for new documents is specifically deprecated in the
> > ISO standard; doing that really plays into a possible MS strategy to
> > continue to ignore the "Strict" version forever, maintaining the
> > proprietary lock-in while claiming to be open.
> >
> > Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save
> > but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps
> > recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only
> > shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable
> > level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least
> > for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not
> > convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the
> > SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It
> > probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML "Strict" export as
> > soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be
> > great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO
> > standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we
> > could beat MS at their own game!
> >
> > > > > It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support.
> > > > > Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in,
> > > > > why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format?
> > > > Think you hit the nail on the head, pal.
> > > > Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways,
> > > > always, anyways...
> > > Office on-the-web only saves in docx.  Office 2013/4 will quite
> > > possibly drop .doc export,
> > > just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed
> > > attempt to drop it
> > > from 2000.  MS can do this because they are the market leader.  To
> > > fail to offer even
> > > rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration.
> > >
> > > my thoughts anyway!
> > >
> > > zf

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***