An zip compressed XML file (like ODF) is significantly less prone to
failure than a binary dump (like .doc). First, XML files are well
structured with defined schemas. One upshot of that is that you can
lose a fair bit of structural data and still rebuild the entire
document without loss. For example, take this document:
<addressbook>
<contact>
<first>Joe</first>
<last>Smith</last>
<phone>123-456-7890</phone>
...
</contact>
...
</addressbook>
Now, let's introduce a file corruption:
<addressbook>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<first>Joe</first>
<last>Smith</last>
<pho--34>123-456-7890</>
...
</contact>
...
</addebk>
This is a fairly severe data corruption. A lot of bytes have been
lost. Yet, you can use the XML schema to reconstruct all the lost
data. If an equivalent corruption had occurred on a binary dump, the
entire document would be lost because you would have lost the
top-level pointer (<addressbook>) that leads you to the rest of the
document.
Compressing the XML into a ZIP file does negate some of the advantage,
but not very much. ZIP compression is designed to be resilient. A
corrupt ZIP file can usually be reconstructed automatically with
little or no loss of data. And when you apply the XML schema to
whatever you get back, you can usually correct whatever the ZIP
algorithm couldn't.
All that is true and sways the technical folks and power users, but I
rather suspect for your typical business person (who is the target of
Cor's project), you probably lost them after "An zip compressed XML
file..." If "higher reliability" can be articulated in terms of a
sentence/bullet point, you might have something useful to add to the
list. Otherwise, I think it is just going to be overwhelming
information. Also keep in mind, this will probably only resonate with
someone who has had an MSO file become corrupt/unuseable.
Uses OpenDocument natively, so your data is secure.
Similar to the point above, is there a way to express this so that it
hits home with the business user? I would say use of the word "secure"
may be problematic. Do you mean meta-data won't get leaked? Do you
mean the file will be useable years down the road (an argument that
Mass. relied heavily upon, but I don't sense it resonating with
others)? Or something else?
no one uses MS Office master documents because the damm things just
don't work. Someone (I forget who) one said "a master document can
only be in two states: corrupt, and about to be corrupt". OOo master
documents are significantly more reliable.
Hmm, I've used MSO's master documents successfully for several years.
So making a statement like that has the potential to destroy credibility
if presented to someone who uses MSO's master documents. The question
in my mind is, how are OO's master documents more reliable? Is there
something about the app that makes them work better/easier to work with?
I'll reiterate my point about styles in OO as well - MSO has the same
capability. The one "selling point" about styles I think OO can make is
page styles.
Not really. OOo is a single app with a common format. You might think
that .odt, .ods, etc are different formats, but they really are just
one. The extension is really for your benefit, nothing more. This same
property holds for OOo internally.
OK, but this still does not change the point that you can copy and paste
between the apps in MSO and OO. For the end user, the perception will
likely be "no difference". As an end-user, I do think there is a
difference, but I have not yet figured out how to articulate the difference.
Included one-button PDFs from any file
Easy task switching
Flash Export of presentations
Can be used along side of existing software
No registration or activitation required (no legal issues, can be put
on any number of machines)
Included Vector graphics program
Resistant to macro-based viruses
I'd ask as well what "easy task switching" refers to? Likewise, "can be
used along side of existing software"? Unfortunately, that bullet did
prompt me to wonder just how many applications out there have
integration with MSO. For anyone using such an application, that alone
could be a showstopper in wanting to switch to OO.
Also, does MSO require registration/activation? I know Windows requires
activation and you obviously have to have a serial number for MSO, but
I'm not aware that you are required to register/activate it with MS.
Jeff Causey
