Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

Hello Pedro,


Le Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:21:25 -0700 (PDT),
plino <pedlino@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > But let me ask it
> > again: why should it not be the right file format for LibreOffice?
> > Fonts embedding cannot be the only one feature that will help us
> > break the dominant vendor's monopoly, can it?
>
> Because any document that allows the use of different fonts and
> relies on them to be displayed as expected needs to have the ability
> to embed fonts. No, ODF already has the most important feature:
> vendor independence. But if the dominant vendor includes a feature
> and it is critical for some type of documents, not including it is a
> handicap. And it can become a serious barrier for wide adoption.

I don't necessarily agree on that -MS OOXML includes features you don't
find inside ODF but few people even know they are there- but while this
feature is important to you I strongly feel  that it's something
very, very few MS Office users know about...

> Regarding your demonstration Cases: Case A is a non-issue. If users
> decide to ignore instructions and use it incorrectly is it the OASIS
> or TDFs fault? Should microwave manufacturers not sell microwaves
> because someone in the future might have the brilliant idea of drying
> their cat in it?

Oh, there are lawsuits like that every month. Remember there are record
labels suing BitTorrent just because it can be used to download music?

> Case B: if in a given device fonts are not displayed properly (the
> software should warn about that)

But in the case of TextEdit, it doesn't, and good luck to have Apple
fix that.

> then ODF is still doing it's most
> important job i.e. making sure the contents are displayed in a
> readable way.


That is right.

> Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > If you want absolute layout fidelity use PDF. That's the reason it's
> > been designed, not ODF.
>
> PDF is used for keeping printing fidelity.

layout fidelity. Which means printing fidelity and visual fidelity, not
only for printing.


> It's not an editable
> format. Should I make my presentations using a PDF?


What you can do is export your presentations under PDF. Many people do
that.

> Following that reasoning I should use PPT for my presentations
> "That's the reason it's been designed, not ODF"

Here's the glitch: You would have to set that specific option for PPT.
If you send it to me maybe I won't be able to read them.


> Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Do you have any idea what it takes to spread the use of a format?
>
> No, I don't. But can you accept that it probably takes longer to
> accept a format that has limitations than if the format is superior
> to the one it's replacing?


Except that these "limitations" do not seem to be crucial for many
people.But to come back to spreading the use of a format: its features
are not what will make the format's use spread (in the office documents
context), it's the choice of applications + the adoption policy +
raising the awareness + ecosystem development + change management
inside organizations using it . 


> How long will it take mkv to replace avi? Not much I guess ;)


Bad example, I think. .avi is not dependent on a dominant player
imposing the use of its own formats. How long will it take to .ogg to
replace .mp3 or .m4a?

Best,
Charles.


> Regards,
> Pedro
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Pu-tp3110117p3111827.html
> Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted