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

The statement that there is perfect interoperability between older and current versions of 
OpenOffice and LibreOffice is incorrect.  An example of that is in the handling of lists in text 
documents.  These things happen.  Some times for good reasons. Sometimes for no reason (bugs and 
misunderstandings), sometimes because the previous behavior was related to a bug, etc.

There are also occasions when some regression happens with regard to a feature that worked 
differently and now doesn't work properly or maybe not as well.  These impact documents in the wild 
no matter how much we shrug our shoulders about it.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: e-letter [] 
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 01:18
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

On 22/07/2011, Gordon Burgess-Parker <> wrote:
On 22/07/2011 15:24, e-letter wrote:

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.

True to a certain point. But you can't ignore the fact that 90-95% of
Office suite users USE MS! They aren't going to be persuaded to migrate
to LO or even OO if when they are sent documents created by MSO, they
don't render properly in LO.

Many have experienced errors sending m$ documents created in various
m$ versions (e.g. recipient using version 1, sender using version 2).
The better persuasive argument is that people observe perfect
transmission of odf documents using LO. For the non-business
environment, LO usage can be promoted by transmission of documents in
odf; since m$ can open an odt format document, they can at least see
the content. If they want to edit, recipients should be actively told
about the existence of LO and encouraged to use LO. This is analogous
to the scenario now where documents are transmitted in m$docx (and
people complain that LO is unable to open!). I want to see increased
instances of people writing to m$ mailing lists/forums (or fora?) to
ask about "how to open an odt file I received", and less complaints
about "interoperability" with m$ within LO users mailing list.

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

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.