Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-08 Thread Hagar Delest
Le 08/10/2016 à 12:34, Peter Kovacs a écrit : You seem to like the way ODFormat is defined. To be precise, I like the the intent of ODF. Several parties decided to work together so that a fully documented file format could be used with advanced application features (I mean that could store

Re: Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-08 Thread Peter Kovacs
On 04.10.2016 22:04, Hagar Delest wrote: Le 04/10/2016 à 06:50, Peter Kovacs a écrit : ODF has a better trancperency then OOXML. But beeing open we need to embrace and value both formats. My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen to ODF? You seem to like the

Re: Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Xen
Hagar Delest schreef op 04-10-2016 22:04: My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen to ODF? Most users would just use OOXML since it would be compatible with AOO and MS Office. It may lead to frustration because of the glitches from the conversions. OTOH, it may

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Xen
Hagar Delest schreef op 03-10-2016 22:57: Even if it came from a previous format, the goal was to make a documented format to allow compatibility with other applications. So not designed from scratch, agreed, but changes made for interoperability. That's how I understand the target of ODF. I

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Xen
Jörg Schmidt schreef op 03-10-2016 12:14: From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net] I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the users back the property of their own data. No, that's not correct. ODF was written this it was compatible with the

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Xen
Hagar Delest schreef op 03-10-2016 0:27: In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to compile data and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I discovered that there was no way to recover the file because it was proprietary. I think that at that time the .doc

Re: Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Hagar Delest
Le 04/10/2016 à 06:50, Peter Kovacs a écrit : ODF has a better trancperency then OOXML. But beeing open we need to embrace and value both formats. This is the key point for AOO now IMHO. I think there is a point having import filters to give users a way to open the files. Then the natural

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > > and a very little bit is my opinion also: > MS is one of our "Platinum sponsors" and it is not a good style blindly to > grumble about MS > > Maybe, but sponsoring the ASF also shouldn't undermine contributors'

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-03 Thread Peter Kovacs
On 03.10.2016 12:14, Jörg Schmidt wrote: But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits. fud, or show me exactly what parts you mean Well, I dont know if it is exactly a fud. There is a cornerstone truce to this. Do

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-03 Thread Peter Kovacs
+1 exactly, that's what I meant and a little bit is my opinion also: MS is not longer a _fundamental_ opponent of free software more and a very little bit is my opinion also: MS is one of our "Platinum sponsors" and it is not a good style blindly to grumble about MS Greetings, Jörg

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-03 Thread Jörg Schmidt
> -Original Message- > From: Xen [mailto:l...@xenhideout.nl] > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 7:29 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: In regards to Open Office > > Rory O'Farrell schreef op 02-10-2016 15:59: > > Top posting: > > >

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Peter Kovacs
You guys now lost me. A file should have a consistent state independent of the implementation of the writing software. And we should take care that our implementation leads to the same positioning on the paper. The tool that is able to read what is on the market or the next big thing wins the

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Hagar Delest
Top posting. In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to compile data and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I discovered that there was no way to recover the file because it was proprietary. I think that at that time the .doc format was not disclosed yet

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Peter Kovacs
Hi Bill, According to the german Linux Magazin 09/16 which has tested the import capabilities of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice, softmaker office and WPS, it depends on your documents. For Apache OpenOffice I found the following: If you consider the operating system, too. You should make sure

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Xen
Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 02-10-2016 23:01: It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF conformance requirement. That is factually not the case, nor does anything in the specification require some clear conformance for interoperability. Exactly the same issue as

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Xen
Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56: Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit : Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation. I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the users back the

RE: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
ev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: In regards to Open Office > > Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit : > > Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without > compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation. > > I think that ODF was

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Hagar Delest
Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit : Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation. I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the users back the property of their own data. This was to

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Patricia Shanahan
...@iol.ie] Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 07:00 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Xen <l...@xenhideout.nl> Subject: Re: In regards to Open Office Top posting: This thread is going off at half cock! Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to cause some alte

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Xen
Rory O'Farrell schreef op 02-10-2016 15:59: Top posting: This thread is going off at half cock! Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting. Why this should be and whether the precise file format is

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Hagar Delest
Top posting. I was of course talking about Office Open XML, also known as OpenXML or OOXML developed by Microsoft and adopted by ECMA International as ECMA-376 in 2006. I've mostly seen ODF for the OpenOffice.org XML file

RE: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
l...@xenhideout.nl> > Subject: Re: In regards to Open Office > > > Top posting: > > This thread is going off at half cock! > > Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to > cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting. Why this

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Rory O'Farrell
Top posting: This thread is going off at half cock! Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting. Why this should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly relevant. Rory On Sun, 02

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Xen
Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05: And let me say it absolutely clear: I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that MS reality of ODF recognized. Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings. It is easier than ever today, I must

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread RA Stehmann
Am 02.10.2016 um 14:05 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: > > And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is > an > ISO standard second class. > I disagree with the second half sentence for a variety of reasons. But that is no topic for this mailing list. Kind regards Michael

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Jörg Schmidt
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net] > Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with > anything else than MS Office. And what is ODF? ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, etc.) written only for OOo. And the truth is this

Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Hagar Delest
Yes it can. Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with anything else than MS Office. So once you switch to Apache OpenOffice, save in native format (.odt for text). MS Office can read that (even if it does not always to a very good job at it). AOO can't save in OOXML but AOO can

In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Bill Pate
I couldn't find any other email other than this for contact, but I did have and may still go back to office 365, but my question is, I have collections of my writings saved at this point after using their set up. Can Apache open their Open Office XLM, and do formatting, spell check, page