Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
> I might also conclude that there is NO reason to support any other file
> format either. I mean, really, why should I support a non-ODF format?
> PDF generation? Remove it! Any other office file format? Remove it! Why
> single out file formats associated with MS?

M$ is "singled-out" because it should be considered that each document
distributed in m$ format is at the expense of the odt format. The
ideal (if perhaps unreal) objective is to see the secretary of the
local sports club sending a membership form in odt format.

> I am more comfortable in OOo than I am in MSO, so, I have created many
> MSO deliverables in OOo and LO. The only time that I make an exception
> is when I believe that I am not able to seamlessly move between formats
> because of incompatibilities. So, if I intend to create a large document
> with multiple images, links, and fields, I begin and end with MSO.
That is your prerogative, but it is preferable to see writer used to
create such large documents in the native odt format, at least to
demonstrate the power of LO. Suppose a user wrote to a m$ forum to
complain that m$word cannot create a good document in odt format. A
likely response would be to go and use LO (or another odf compliant
program)!

> While writing a book on OOo, I worked in OOo on a Linux platform and
> some of the editors worked in MSO. We moved documents back and forth
> seamlessly with no problems. They had no intention of using OOo or LO.

Or you sure? Or maybe the fact that you were able to work to m$ format
provided no incentive for them to change...

> If MSO support were removed, then I would have been stuck with using
> MSO. As a side note, the owner of the publishing company was so
> impressed with how well this worked, that internally they moved to OOo
> and then published their templates in ODF format.

That is excellent news. Do you think this could have been achieved if
for example they saw that creating an ott template was superior to m$
and this reason was sufficient to change? Or maybe the ability to work
with m$ was the initial point of gaining interest and curiosity about
LO...

> I download numerous MSO files from numerous sources. if LO is not able
> to read these files, well, then I need to purchase MSO (and a Windows
> computer) so that I can read them.
>
> Do you ever have reason to open an MSO file? Ever try to send an ODF
> file to a neighborhood or club mailing list? I receive the same reaction
> as when someone sends out a MS Publisher file that is not supported
> outside of MS Publisher. "Hey, what is that file that I cannot open?"

Seems this is an education issue. If the benefits of LO are explained
before sending that "unknown file format", recipients would be more
understanding?

> I do believe that MSO now supports ODF files, so perhaps...

Try creating an odt file in writer, then open it via word. Repeat vice
versa (i.e. create odt file in word, open in writer); m$ performance
is shockingly (and deliberately, no doubt) poor, perhaps to give the
impression that odt is an inferior format that should not be used.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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