On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob, I agree completely with your sentiment concerning slavish adherence to a > specification when that adherence breaks interoperability in unfortunate and > costly (support-wise) ways. > > My only point is that such slavish adherence also exists in changes that show > up in OOo-dev 3.4.0 and in the current developer snapshots at Apache > OpenOffice. So there is a pot-kettle-black problem in making derisive > comments about how LO has also fallen into that pot-hole. Making > attributions about TDF process quality is unwarranted. >
The Apache project was not responsible for the 3.4 beta. TDF was responsible for what they released. When we release 3.4 we will be responsible for that. I sure hope that we don't have that bug. > It would be good to put our (AOO, LO, etc.) heads together and ensure that > there is a mutual agreement on a way to preserve interoperability and also > make the deviation from the specification widely understood (i.e. with an ODF > Interoperability and Conformance Advisory and, ideally, an ODF 1.2 erratum > and an ODF 1.3 correction). > It would be good to know what Microsoft will do with their next version of Office as well, e.g., whether they will have this same issue. I'd hate to make a change, and then have next version of Office suddenly require that attribute and reject docs otherwise. Maybe something to try at the Brussels Plugfest. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 04:27 > 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? > > 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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
