Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOXML ECMA-376, transitionnal and strict

It would be great if the TDF had a few static pages that could be linked to in email signature, e.g. "Our company modernised standardising on the OpenDoument Format, here is why" linked to example pages on the TDF, or customised copies.

The TDF sample page could have what's good about it as a standard and why OOXML is not actually a workable standard. The examples in this thread are known by many who follow it, Italo summarises the whole bunch of reasons so well :-)

On 28/04/16 7:15 PM, wrote:
Thank you very much for those informations.
I did not succeed in getting them anywhere but here.
They are going to be very useful (i'll translate them on the french discuss forum too)

One last thing about this matter of OOXML.

No average user is going to know (nor to care) about which OOXML version he is using.
And, 99,99% of the time, it's going to be transitionnal OOXML.
Which is un-recommended by law now, and which has to change whithin 3 years max.

The question is, how do we enforce the rules with the greatest efficiency possible.

In my opinion, an automatic reply of the administration ingoing email platform would be the best 
It would reply automatically to anyone who sends an email with a transitionnal OOXML attached.
This email would be written very carefully whith information about IGR v2, about the 2 versions of 
OOXML and about what are the best practices to communicate with a french administration (ODF).

I'm not sure if it can be done technically, but I'm going to know it soon. If anyone has a better 
idea, please don't hesitate to tell.

Therefore is the following question :
What is the easiest way to know wether a file is written in strict OOXML or not ?

Surely we will have to unzip and check something in the OOXML file.

Any way to do it without the need of unzipping it ?
(check file property or check file header)

If not, is there a single file in which we could check a tag for every kind of OOXML file (docx, 
pptx, xlsx..) ?
(Unzip. Open xxx.xml. Find <yyy> tag. If value NEQ [xmlstrict] then send email to sender )

Or would we be obliged to have a different method for every kind of OOXML files.
(Unzip. In case of filename ends with docx Open xxx.xml. Find <yyy> tag. If value NEQ [xmlstrict] 
then send email to sender. In case of filename ends with xlsx [...] )

Or maybe just checking if a single file exists or not would tell us if the file is strict or 
transitionnal ?

----- Mail original -----

De: "Italo Vignoli" <>
Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Avril 2016 19:39:14
Objet: Re: [tdf-discuss] OOXML ECMA-376, transitionnal and strict

On 26/04/2016 12:46, wrote:

Is it correct to say that the Transitionnal OOXML format is not
compliant with any international standard or norm ? Neither ECMA, nor
ISO, nor anything but MS$ itself.
OOXML Transitional is not the standard format, but a tweaked version of
OOXML integrating bynary blobs and other non standard components, which
was supposed to help the transition from the legacy file formats to
OOXML Strict (which is the only standard file format).

If so, Does this means that NO version of MS$ office (from 2010 to
the actual) writes BY DEFAULT in a standardized or normalised format.
for default formats)
Yes. Every Microsoft Office version since 2007 defaults to OOXML
Transitional, implementing a slightly different version of the OOXML
Transitional non standard file format.

Only MS Office 2013 and MS Office 2016 implement OOXML Strict, with a
process that makes it virtually impossible for any normal user to get a
real OOXML Strict file format (the user should save the document using
the OOXML Strict option - listed as last of the "save as" options -
before writing a single character).

Because of this behaviour which intentionally prevents the creation of
OOXML Strict files, the number of OOXML Strict files available is close
to zero.

In addition, Microsoft fonts used as default by MS Office since 2007 -
known as C-Fonts or Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas, Constantia and
Corbel) - can only be used by MS Office licensed customers, as they are
included in MS Office EULA, to add another level of incompatibility.

Is anyone confident enough in his knowledge of OOXML to acknowledge
this ? Maybe this place is not the best one to ask the question ? If
so, would please somebody advice me the best place to post the
question ?
I am confident enough to answer most questions about OOXML issues.

Please do note that after the UK decision on July 22, 2014, not even
Microsoft has dared to define OOXML as standard in public, because it is
perfectly clear that the file format is not standard and will never be a
standard (after nine years and four different implementations of OOXML
Transitional, which was supposed to last a maximum of two MS Office

To unsubscribe 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.