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 [mailto:inp...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 01:18 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy? On 22/07/2011, Gordon Burgess-Parker <gbpli...@gmail.com> 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 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 -- 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
