On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <and...@pitonyak.org> wrote: > On 07/21/2011 08:47 AM, e-letter wrote: >> On 21/07/2011, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak<and...@pitonyak.org> 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$word cannot create a good document in odt format. A >> likely response would be to go and use LO (or another odf compliant >> program)! > > MSO is able to create a nice document. Certainly there are constructs > that I use in my ODT files that are not easily supported in MSO (say > items related to page styles), but things that are supported by both do > not always carry over. > Fine. People are/should be free to choose whichever program they prefer. If someone likes the interface of m$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 discuss+h...@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
