Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

----- Original Message ----

From: Barbara Duprey <>
On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

 Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
Barbara Duprey<>  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.

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.


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.

While I do agree per your "honourable" comment...

OOXML in any form[1] is certainly not standard, nor is it open.
So what _would_ you call it if you were not going to call it what it really is 

Honestly, we shouldn't be trying to be politically correct, but rather honest, 
if not bluntly so.

Call out Microsoft on their lack of following even their own standard; it'll 
have a greater impact as the community rallies behind that instead of trying to 
be politically correct and let them get away with doing what they've done.

A goose by any other name is still a goose.


[1] Even Microsoft makes no qualms about not following ISO OOXML or even  giving 
you options so that you know you are writing ISO OOXML -  transitional or 

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.