On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob, > > I have no idea how get from a catch-22 between ODF 1.2 (latest), ODF 1.2 > earlier, and down-level ODF 1.1 consumers that are strict about it (like > Microsoft Word 2007/2010) to this outburst about LibreOffice. There is no > foundation for that departure into the stratosphere. >
I have no wish for the ODF standard, like the US Constitution or the Bible, being used as an excuse to justify stupidity. ODF is a specification for document exchange. If you are using it in a way that decreases interoperability then you really need to step back and ask yourself if your literal interpretation really makes sense. If you bought a hammer and the instructions had an ambiguous statement that lead you to think it was asking you to hit yourself in the head rather than the nail on the head, would you do it? What if it was an ISO standard? I assume not. Think of it from the user's perspective. Are they really going to be satisfied with the argument "The standard told me to do it" when their documents show up as corrupt in MS Office 2007? I don't think so. Standards may have errors. User expectations do not, at least not for any viable software application. And until we have 90% market share the user will assume that MS Office is correct. Reality sucks. Deal with it. -Rob. > - Dennis > > FOR THOSE PLAYING ALONG AT HOME: > > True, the situation has been over-simplified and everyone who says not-us > presumes it is some other guys instead. But that is not what analysis > reveals. > > For the record, simple documents written in ODF 1.2 (extended) from the > Apache OpenOffice developer build of 3.4.0 have the same down-level interop > problem with Microsoft Office. A simple ODF 1.2 (not extended) document from > OOo-dev 3.4.0, the last beta produced by Oracle, also has the problem. > > A simple test against the Microsoft Word ODF 1.1 consumer with *any* document > from *any* of these producers could have detected the problem. > > However, a simple document written in ODF 1.2 (not-extended) from > OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 (Oracle distribution) does *not* have the down-level > interop problem. Which means that, instead, it is in violation of the ODF > 1.2 manifest schema, which was changed after anticipatory claiming of ODF 1.2 > happened. You will be thrilled to learn that Lotus Symphony 3.0.0 FP3 is in > the same boat: Word doesn't flinch, but a current ODF Conformance Checker > will. > > My money is on those who realize that the schema is not the thing to be > slavish about, especially for an inconsequential retro-active provision, if > the goal is least friction for interop with their own down-level and other > ODF 1.0/1.1 implementations. It is clear that, with the confusion this > situation has caused here and in the interop efforts of actual users, the > creation of this retro-active provision in ODF 1.2 was a stupid move at the > ODF TC. I am embarrassed that I didn't catch it there. Basically Michael > Brauer and I are the culprits. > > My direct experience with senior LibreOffice developers is that they are > acutely aware of changes in ODF 1.2 that are causing needless down-level > interop problems and they are attempting to navigate that morass. At Apache > OpenOffice the development effort is just getting revivified enough to where > some of these same provisions can be dealt with. It would be good to find a > common basis for navigating these shoals. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 12:23 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OOo, ODF 1.2 extended format and Word: is the possibility to > open OOo generated file by word ed as bug? > > [ ... ] > > If a program does not meet user expectations then it is a bug. If you > want to be compatible with Microsoft Office then you need to play by > their rules. The existence of standards like ODF and OOXML does not > change the basic fact that interoperability is hard work. It requires > testing. It does not happen overnight. It is not merely the result of > an incantation that begins with the sacred syllables "ISO". > > In any case Seeing responses like this from LibreOffice makes be very > optimistic about the future of Apache OpenOffice. Whatever the cause, > the fact that LibreOffice ships with this problem shows either a > woefully inadequate QA program, or total indifference to real world > requirements. Even testing a single LibreOffice document in Office > 2007 would have shown this bug. Is that too much to expect? > > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
