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

On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <> wrote:
On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote:
On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak<>  wrote
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.

The problem is that the final deliverable to the client is an MSO
document and the complicated structures that I frequently use do not
properly export to the MSO document format. It is very time consuming to
work through a 250 page document full of cross-references and text
frames that do NOT export to the format required by the client. I lost
many hours fixing up the document in MSO so that it would be ready for
final delivery.

In my opinion interoperability with the _m$ format_ weakens increased
adoption of the odf. At the start of a 250 page document, ideally the
decision should be made to use odt and the issue become ensuring that
LO behaviour in native odt format occurs with minimal bugs. This
experience alone should promote wider adoption of LO. The claim to
offer (or attain to) perfect interoperability with the _m$ format_
leads to time wasted trying to get LO to work with m$. If the end
requirement is m$, pay to use m$.
Suppose a user wrote to a m$ 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

MSO is able to create a nice document. Certainly there are constructs
that I use in my ODT files that are not easily supported in MSO (say
items related to page styles), but things that are supported by both do
not always carry over.

Fine. People are/should be free to choose whichever program they
prefer. If someone likes the interface of m$o, good for them. The
point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO
performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native
m$ format (or indeed secondary odf). It does not seem right that
people complain that "writer does not save to m$ format well", when
the statement "writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents"
should be the main reason to use LO.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.