I agree with Gary's thoughts. I think that it is important for OOo credibility for the converter to be as good as possible simply because so much of the commercial/official world believes that Word is the only WP in existence. The problem in my experience cuts both ways with Writer not reading some features in Word 2007 docs all that well. My own thought is that MSoft has actually increased the problems with each of its incarnations. Back in the days when the table function was not widely used (that is about four years ago) Word documents converted accurately between StarOffice and WordPerefect with the exceptions of each others tiny amounts of proprietory code such as smart quotes. My guess is that MSoft have increased the amount of proprietory code over the years and that have done so deliberately. Jim Nichterlein
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:07 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: > Now that we know that there are numerous discrepancies after converting > to/from MS Word and Writer (and ditto for the other components), just > how are we going to deal with them? Like many others, I often have to > start and end with MS Word DOC documents while using Writer for the bulk > of the writing or editing tasks. That's just how the real world operates. > > If OOo users write or edit in Writer's ODT file format and also save it > to DOC, how can they feel secure that what they see with Writer will > appear the same when viewing their DOC docs with Word? If they become > burned sufficiently, OOo might just lose those writers or editors > altogether. Why should they have to proofread their OOo-produced DOC > docs a second time? Extra time is often wasted money for most writer, > editors, or publishing houses. > > OOoAuthors should maintain a list of who's been naughty or nice (and > check it twice...). Every known OOo conversion bug should be disclosed > (both in the appropriate chapter in the docs and in an omnibus chapter > or appendix), so that knowledge of their presence can be determined at > once. Also having these bugs listed might even get them remedied quicker > in case a critical mass of bugs or a tipping point is exceeded. > > Perhaps, the OOoAuthors could have another Note devoted to bugs of this > type until they are eliminated. In any event, we should amass a list for > ourselves and clean up the "published" chapters so that the conversion > errors are noted and any kludges or work-arounds are described. > > It may be only a minor irritation having OOo making a bad conversion if > one is aware of them, such as OOo footnotes inserting a tab instead of a > space after its number or the bulleted lists having problems with their > conversions when viewed with Word. But if one isn't aware of them and > assumes that the DOC conversions are OK may be in for a shock afterwards > when it might be too late in the publishing cycle to correct them, etc. > > Gary > I agree with what gary says
