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

On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> Barbara,
>
> Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
> Barbara Duprey<Barb@onr.com>  a écrit :
>
> > On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:
> > > Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately,
> > > > should not be a problem: OOo&   LibO implement the existing and
> > > > used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007
> > > > and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO
> > > > standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if
> > > > you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them
> > > > MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience
> > > > to its
> > > This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
> > > 29300 also called OOXML.
> > >
> > > Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call
> > > simply MS XML proprietary formats.
> > >
> > > Davide
> > They don't implement the "Strict" version -- but I think we'd have a
> > hard time arguing that they don't implement the "Transitional"
> > version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in
> > that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called
> > these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble.
> Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really,
> Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1.
>
> Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean
> (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the
> transitional was "offering more features" and was more in line with the
> existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this
> stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats
> used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad
> will against MS: it's a really important question.
>
> best,

Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these "proprietary" formats, though, 
even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that "honourable" way 
out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term 
to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the 
juggernaut that was rolling over the process.

--
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 ***