Bonjour, Sait-on si TDF a produit ou fera un commentaire sur le choix de la bureautique ?? (je doute pas que les gros éditeurs donneront leur avis).
Car cela avait été fait pour lors du processus similaire réalisé par le gouvernement britannique : http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/974#comment-974 Pour rappel: > The Document Foundation enthusiastically supports the UK Government proposal > supporting the adoption of ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2, alongside with HTML 4.01 and > HTML5, CSV and TXT, for sharing or collaborating with government documents. > > According to Vint Cerf, Google's VP and Chief Internet Evangelist: "Google > supports the use of ODF as an open document format. ODF is an international > open standard free to implement by all software developers without > restrictions. Choosing ODF will allow the UK Government to select from a wide > range of implementations to get the best value for UK taxpayers." > > As an open standard free to implement, ODF has developed an ecosystem that > values technical excellence, progress and interoperability above all other > factors. The Document Foundation is proud to compete in a market that > prioritizes these attributes and at the same time helps governments, > organizations and companies to cooperate in order to push forward the > interoperability envelope. > > ODF has enabled different implementations to interact in real world scenarios > like no other productivity related technology has done in the past, and as > such has been quickly adopted by a diverse set of entities. In fact, choosing > ODF as the single standard for editable office documents will offer many > advantages from several points of view: > > 1. ODF is maintained by a truly independent organization as OASIS, which has > no hidden ties to one single software vendor (like OOXML with Microsoft, > through the European Computer Manufacturers Association). In addition, most > software vendors - including Microsoft - are members of OASIS, and as such > are involved in the development of the ODF standard (and in many cases > support the ODF format). As such, ODF is the best choice between document > standards because of its transparent independence. > > 2. According to Jim Thatcher, Principal Program Manager, Office Standards, > Microsoft Corporation: "Microsoft has successfully implemented the OASIS Open > Document Format (ODF) Version 1.2 Standard in the Microsoft Office 2013 and > Microsoft Office 365 products. Our testing has shown that these > implementations of ODF 1.2 provide a high level of interoperability between > Microsoft Office and other independent implementations of the standard. > Microsoft technical experts participated in the ODF Technical Committee, with > specific focus on the OpenFormula and digital signature specifications. In > Microsoft's opinion the ODF 1.2 specification represents a significant > improvement to the ODF standard." So, ODF is a good choice even according to > Microsoft experts. > > 3. Native ODF support is wider than native OOXML support. In fact, because of > its "non standard" nature, native OOXML support is offered only by MS Office. > On the contrary, native ODF support is provided not only by LibreOffice and > Apache OpenOffice - both derived from the original OpenOffice.org project - > but also from other productivity software such as Calligra, AbiWord and > Gnumeric, and by Microsoft Office. Therefore, the addition of a second > document standard like OOXML would only represent an additional burden for > the user, without any substantial advantage for the community. Also, > maintaining two standards would be significantly more expensive for the > government than maintaining one. In fact, standards are evolving with time, > although slowly, and keeping them aligned - in order to guarantee a > transparent interoperability - would indeed be a problem. > > 3. OOXML, as a standard, has had at least four different impersonation since > its inception: 2007 transitional, 2010 transitional, 2013 transitional and > 2013 strict. In addition, Microsoft Office 2011 for Macintosh adds another > transitional version of OOXML. None of these "transitional" impersonations > are falling into the standard document format definition, as they are > including a number of proprietary blobs. In addition, the standard compliance > of OOXML 2013 strict has still to be fully evaluated. In fact, it looks like > Microsoft Excel 2013 behaves in a rather strange way when it opens one of its > own spreadsheets including the dates between February 1, 1900, and March 1, > 1900, and saved in OOXML strict (more here: http://wp.me/p4wCe-fa). On the > contrary, none of the ODF implementations can be considered as "transitional" > versus the standard, and this makes ODF support more predictable. > > 4. OOXML four different impersonations are part of Microsoft new end user > lock-in strategy, which is more sophisticated than the original one based on > proprietary formats. Today, lock-in is based on more elements: the multiple > OOXML versions (which are a real problem for interoperability, as they create > a matrix of different ways of representing the same contents); and the > introduction of the proprietary (and patented) C-Fonts, which are the default > choice since Office 2007, as they cannot be emulated by free fonts and > therefore mess up the look of documents (if opened by any other office suite, > as the use of C-Fonts is limited by the EULA to Microsoft Office licensed > users). On the contrary, all native implementations of ODF guarantee against > any form of lock-in, as it would be extremely easy to switch to another > software without any impact on document interoperability. > > 5. The ODF adoption would create an even ground for competition for the > office suites and the other applications supporting the single standard > document format, which would in turn foster innovation. Users could choose > the best office suite or the best software for their needs, from a large > number of options. In addition, the single standard would encourage other > software vendors to improve ODF support, and this would bring additional > benefits to the users. > > Again, the UK Government proposal supporting the adoption of ODF - along with > HTML, CSV and TXT - as the single standard for editable documents is a step > in the right direction, which will bring substantial advantages to UK > citizens. -- Envoyez un mail à [email protected] pour savoir comment vous désinscrire Les archives de la liste sont disponibles à http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/fr/discuss/ Tous les messages envoyés sur cette liste seront archivés publiquement et ne pourront pas être supprimés
