Short answer: Any release (2007,2010,2013,2016) has it's own transitional
format. AFAIK
schrieb am Di., 26. Apr. 2016, 10:13:
> Hello,
>
> I'm a french user willing to get some answers about OOXML format.
> This post is already released on the fr.discuss mailing list.
>
So.
Is it correct to say that the Transitionnal OOXML format is not compliant with
any international standard or norm ? Neither ECMA, nor ISO, nor anything but
MS$ itself.
If so,
Does this means that NO version of MS$ office (from 2010 to the actual) writes
BY DEFAULT in a standardized or
Hi, I know it's too early but one of the direct consequences of the
sandboxed application package is the possibility for developers to
maintain an application more updated, independent of the distribution,
making it easy to add security updates, new features and bugs fixes
(...)
Canonical Snap
You can ask in the Microsoft open specifications forum:
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/home?category=openspecifications
But, please, be polite, people there can have another perspective of
this matter and expressions like MS$ doesn't help
The 'transitional' variant of ooxml is
On 26/04/2016 15:09, pasqual milvaques wrote:
> The 'transitional' variant of ooxml is specified in Part 4 of ISO/IEC
> 29500 so it's standard, it's supposed that the features of the
> transitional variant ease the transition from older formats, I'm not
> sure if there is a plan for making the
Hello,
I'm a french user willing to get some answers about OOXML format.
This post is already released on the fr.discuss mailing list.
As you may know, something changing the game just happened in France.
The second version of the Interoperability General Refenrential was just
released.
It