Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello Charles (et al), 2011/1/3 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. As one of those actually trying to maintain OOXML in ISO, your discussions are really interesting to me. As per your discussions around S vs T, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. 1. About conformance to OOXML (S or T): Leif mentioned that implementing OOXML would display Microsoft's dirty laundry. I am looking very much forward to your findings and where Microsoft Office does not comply with the conformance rules in OOXML. I hope you will share these with us - and the world in general, and any test documents generated by Microsoft Office you make during your implementation would be extremely interesting to look at. 2. T vs S: Please bear in mind that S is basically a limited version of T. The only major obstacle/difference is that alle the namespaces of S are different than those of T. Also, Microsoft Office uses these namespaces during import as some sort of white-list, and AFAIK the new namespaces of S have not yet been added to this whitelist (since the addition of them is relatively recent and was after launch of Microsoft Office 2010). Basically, if Microsoft Office doesn't recognize the new namespaces, the docs will all fail on import in Microsoft Office and you'd have zero interop. Finally I ancourage you to make a public place to put your findings while implementing OOXML in LibreOffice. It could serve as a very usefull reference for a lot of people - including people like Leif lobbying our politicians to use/mandate usage ODF. PS: when trying to do interop with e.g. Microsoft Office always consult their implementer notes available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908652(v=office.12).aspx If any of you need additional information, I'd be happy to help. PPS: for those of you on this list actually implementing OOXML in LibreOffice - are you considering implementing MCE (OOXML, Part 3) fully in LibreOffice? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Jesper, We are not interested in OOXML, a standard that became one only after a campaign of deception and unacceptable pressures driven by Microsoft. We are interested in ODF, an open standard developed by many players including Microsoft. We are only offering convenience to our users by letting them interact with the poprietary formats of ms office product range. Therefore the OOXML standard is not really something we are interested to help. Thanks, Charles. Le 4 janv. 2011, 12:38 PM, Jesper Lund Stocholm 4a4553504...@gmail.com a écrit : Hello Charles (et al), 2011/1/3 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com a écrit : On... Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable... As one of those actually trying to maintain OOXML in ISO, your discussions are really interesting to me. As per your discussions around S vs T, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. 1. About conformance to OOXML (S or T): Leif mentioned that implementing OOXML would display Microsoft's dirty laundry. I am looking very much forward to your findings and where Microsoft Office does not comply with the conformance rules in OOXML. I hope you will share these with us - and the world in general, and any test documents generated by Microsoft Office you make during your implementation would be extremely interesting to look at. 2. T vs S: Please bear in mind that S is basically a limited version of T. The only major obstacle/difference is that alle the namespaces of S are different than those of T. Also, Microsoft Office uses these namespaces during import as some sort of white-list, and AFAIK the new namespaces of S have not yet been added to this whitelist (since the addition of them is relatively recent and was after launch of Microsoft Office 2010). Basically, if Microsoft Office doesn't recognize the new namespaces, the docs will all fail on import in Microsoft Office and you'd have zero interop. Finally I ancourage you to make a public place to put your findings while implementing OOXML in LibreOffice. It could serve as a very usefull reference for a lot of people - including people like Leif lobbying our politicians to use/mandate usage ODF. PS: when trying to do interop with e.g. Microsoft Office always consult their implementer notes available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908652(v=office.12).aspx If any of you need additional information, I'd be happy to help. PPS: for those of you on this list actually implementing OOXML in LibreOffice - are you considering implementing MCE (OOXML, Part 3) fully in LibreOffice? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listarc... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello Charles, 2011/1/4 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org: Jesper, We are not interested in OOXML, a standard that became one only after a campaign of deception and unacceptable pressures driven by Microsoft. We are interested in ODF, an open standard developed by many players including Microsoft. We are only offering convenience to our users by letting them interact with the poprietary formats of ms office product range. Therefore the OOXML standard is not really something we are interested to help. I think I was misunderstood. :o) I was not so much asking you guys to help us in SC34/WG4. With implementers at Microsoft Office, ORACLE OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Kingsoft, DataWatch etc, I think we are pretty well covered as it is. (I'd personally be interested in what you find, but that's a whole other story) I was suggesting that making your findings public (if you indeed find some), you'd be able to help other OSS projects with focus like yours (which is users and not promoting OOXML), and in addition you'd be helping people like Leif and companies like ORACLE, IBM etc who are actively fighting OOXML in governments etc. Win-wn? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote: Including the ability to write OOXML format is a political decision driven by the Novell and Microsoft marketing agreement. User experience? Ask that question of any user of older versions of Word after they receive a .docx document and are unable to open it. Indeed, I have experienced this myself when trying to send documents. However a blanket ban on OOXML would, in the long run, be a disadvantage to *LibreOffice*. Whether you appreciate it or not the older document formats (.doc .xls .ppt) are going to fade away as Microsoft pushes its I last checked the market-share numbers for office suites in mid 2010, when in discussion with my organisation about whether to go to MSO 07 throughout the campus or drop MSO completely. The figures were, IIRC MSO 2007 - 60% globally MSO 97-2003 - 20% globally OOo 3.x - 20% globally The numbers tilt a bit on different continents. MSO is more popular in corporate America. OOo is more popular (around 30% or more) in Europe - the number increases as you head east. The MSO 97-2003 users are important. Many are not attracted by the Office 07/10 interface, or cannot afford to upgrade. However, as time goes on they will see more .docx appearing and may feel forced to upgrade, if only to maintain access to shared data. Having something that is not MSO but that has an interface like the one they are used to should be very attractive for them. In UK, MS has dropped the price of MSO to students a lot in recent years - £60 two years ago, under £40 today from the software4students reseller. A lot of these 'student' editions end up in small businesses. We should be targeting these people. When Google Chrome was launched, people thought it might cripple Firefox. In reality, a small number of Firefox users switched, while many IE users who were not attracted by FF went to Chrome. Some statistics now put IE at less than 50% of the market. If LibO does everything OOo does and little else, the project would seem to have little point. If LibO embraces functionality and interface features that OOo does not have, it may be that our growth is only in part from OOo users (most of whom are happy with OOo), but mostly from MSO 97-03 users. It may be that without explicity aiming to remove users from our sister, OOo, aiming to take the other 20% who do not use MSO 07 (plus those who do!) may be a more effective way to spread the file format. If we can get ODT used enough - through users choosing to overlook docx output - many MSO users may find it helpful to have LibO (or OOo) installed also. At some point they will wonder why they keep paying for MSO. zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
I actually agree wholeheartedly with Italo here - please do not try to hamstring the developers with your (or our) own preferences! The idea of community discussion is to guide developers, not to instruct them to do the impractical or impossible and equally not to instruct them (for whatever reason) *not* to do what can be done. On the other hand, though I have already done so in another message, I am more than happy to discuss why some options are more or less pragmatic for developers and will do so inline with Italo's comments as quoted below:- On 02/01/2011 18:47, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 7:15 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: No, that was not the point. Italo Vignoli wrote: LibreOffice writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is not under discussion. That is the point I objected to. [snip] I am a member of the Steering Committee, and I totally second this decision just because it makes sense for the users (as I have tried to explain in another message). LibreOffice is the office suite with the widest document format support, and this is a plus. This is, and long has been, a *major* plus for both OpenOffice and now for LibreOffice - we do need to keep this as an objective. As long as OOXML is a standard recognized by ISO, it makes sense to support it completely. This is different from the fact that we are trying to make ODF the only winning standard, and that we are telling people that they should not use OOXML. Again, this is exactly the point I also made - although I did perhaps attribute a little more evil to Microsoft by suggesting the issues with OOXML may be a deliberate move to capture that standards compliant high-ground from us. [snip] TDF is a community driven project, not a mailing list driven project. Community is not just writing in a mailing list, is a lot different and a lot more than that. I do not think that we ever gave the perception that this is a mailing list driven project. Well said, Italo! Where the wider community has something relevant to say on this, it should begin from the presumption that we somehow *will* write OOXML to the best practical ability of the developers. That, not personal preferences, is the real issue. I remain convinced that it is for all practical purposes not possible to write OOXML in the currently active Microsoft format since that is both a rapidly moving target and might leave us open to claims of patent-breaking unless we can demonstrate clear reverse-engineering of the format. Even if we could do that, we would then face the problem of the target rapidly moving away from us. Rather than play a catch up to Microsoft game, it remains my view that we should write OOXML in the ISO-standard format for so long as that standard lasts. That gives Microsoft the chance to either catch up and use the standard they set themselves or to change the standard so that they can meet it. In either case, LibreOffice would be ahead of the game Microsoft plays rather than behind, provided we do make sure to pop up a warning to remind users we are using the standard and Microsoft may not yet be able to deal with it. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/2011 18:29, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2011-01-02 12:07 PM, Mark Preston wrote: Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form. Eh? It already can write them. Why go backwards? There definitely needs to be a warning when doing the Save-As, but going backwards (ie, removing the ability to write them) would be counter-productive at best. I perhaps put that badly this time. My apologies. My concern is not so much with what we do, but with what we can do *well* and effectively. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/2011 6:34 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/3/11 1:12 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: I was under the impression that the vanilla versions of Office since 2007 SP2 could read and write ODF formats, with no need to install any plugins (but with their own special twist on ODF). From what you say here, that is not true; I haven't installed Office in a long time, and don't intend to, so I didn't know that ODF support was not automatic. ODF support is built in since MS Office 2007 SP2 for Windows. MS Office for MacOS does not support ODF, and there is not a plugin availble. The older version of MS Office do not support ODF, but there is a plugin available. We all know that Microsoft is trying to slow down ANY standard format, because format lock in is a long time strategy. I do not know if you are familiar with Gandhi statement: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. This is exactly what is happening for office suites. Gandhi won over the British empire being respectful of law and being an advocate of freedom. I do not have his moral strength, but I do follow his lesson. Very nice, Italo, and thanks for the information about ODF support in Office. We seem to be at then they fight you so it's looking good! Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best software for users? I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon positive contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a feature, promote a technology, contribute a new export filter. It does not make any sense to take a decision in order to bash a single company. We are in the market to promote free software and good ethics in a positive way. Most office suite users are looking for software able to create and manage documents. They are looking for positive answers. Or is it just a lack of communication? I do not think it is a lack of communication. It is a different agenda: TDS's is FOR free software, other people's one is AGAINST Microsoft. Bashing Microsoft in the name of ethics is a total nonsense. Ethics is a positive concept, and cannot be used to justify any negative action whatsoever. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/11 3:40 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see? I know is a pain, but is really a case by case issue. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 4:55 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: snip It may be that without explicity aiming to remove users from our sister, OOo, aiming to take the other 20% who do not use MSO 07 (plus those who do!) may be a more effective way to spread the file format. If we can get ODT used enough - through users choosing to overlook docx output - many MSO users may find it helpful to have LibO (or OOo) installed also. At some point they will wonder why they keep paying for MSO. zf Unfortunately, those MSO users can easily remain unaware of the value of OOo/LibO (and other ODF applications), because since Office 2007 SP2, Office (on Windows, with no plugins) will read and write ODF formats. If one of these MSO users gets an ODF document from a non-MSO application, it will open. If they don't notice compatibility problems, they will have no reason to investigate. In many cases, though, especially with spreadsheets, there will be obvious problems. So who will get the blame -- MSO, or the other application? Will they be likely to install the non-MSO application, even though it's free? Will the non-MSO application user continue to use ODF, or switch to exporting XP or OOXML formats to maintain interoperability? (Out of self-preservation, they really need to do that; it's not clear at the moment which of these formats will be better for interoperability.) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 10:26 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/3/11 3:40 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see? I know is a pain, but is really a case by case issue. There's some very encouraging information elsewhere in this thread about test documents that already exist for this. I think we may have a plan going soon! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Italo, On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best software for users? I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon positive contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a feature, promote a technology, contribute a new export filter. ... What I mean now with a real example. What if I would propose to transform the startcenter into a individual desktop with drop and drag like the former integrated desktop of StarOffice. And I would also propose to make it choosable for users: ~ to have it in the LO-window like now the startcenter ~ to dock it like toolbars (perhaps with a constant distance from the dokument-window) ~ to use it like an external container of individual folders, files and links. How would someone decide whether it were a positiv feature for LO or not? Because no one has a crystall ball to look into the future. And it could be, that such a proposal is denied by LO but ten months later another producer of an office-suit succeeds with just such a feature. And if it were denied, is it lost than till somebody others makes the same proposal years later. Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new conditions. That's my problem with the decisions. But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the 3.3-release again. Greetings, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello Johannes, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 20:31) Hi Cor, ... Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new conditions. Not that I am aware of. Eventually it could be helfpul to have a list of such ideas in a common place (TDF or LO) with marks like: later on - not practicable - and so on and with short reasons. Because people could check such a list and see whether an idea was already in discussion and what the decision was, even why. This could prevent that the same proposals come again and again, or reduce that. And a workflow could be: You have an idea? First look at the List ... If your idea is not mentioned, mail it for discussion ... Perhaps developers and others could spare some time by that. Definitely a good idea. A must have somewhere on our wiki or site. ( AFAIK we do not have it yet. I always think of the wiki, rather than the website, because the content might be more subject to changes and of course on the wiki more can help ) But did you have a look at (I myself do it just now..) http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/ ? Maybe your idea is a logic addition for that section? That's my problem with the decisions. That many things are not clear, just because of the nature of a FLOSS-community? I think I do not understand what kind of clarity or confirmation you are looking for. In comparison with the real members here I'm from outer space ;-) Be aware - might change suddenly ;-) I have to put many things together like a puzzle to get an overview for myself. Don't think that any of us has a complete overview. But of course, the longer you are somewhere, the easier to find your way. But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the 3.3-release again. And maybe too after the version after that? That's the reason why I ask such odd questions ;-) (BTW: 3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no earlier then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.) Is this a good plan from a psychological point of view? Because people out of TDF/LO and OOo are waiting for the 3.3, and now: OOo is personally weaked; some sites write it like is OOo at the end? LO is almost unknown for many potenzial users and has to prove that its new system of Open Office Suite works well. Is it good in this situation to come as the second? Eventually weeks after? In a race between two usually the second is the loser. That is one side of the subject. On the other hand, LibO 3.3.0 will be based on OpenOffice.org 3.3.0. Thus it is not easy to release at the same moment or even earlier. Even more so, since quite some developments started to at the LibO side, and changes from Novell and others have been integrated, I would not be surprised if we, especially since all is relatively very new, need more time for our final QA. And since I am very good in predicting the past, don't ask me ;-) Regards, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these proprietary formats, though, even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that honourable way out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the juggernaut that was rolling over the process. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
- Original Message From: Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these proprietary formats, though, even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that honourable way out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the juggernaut that was rolling over the process. While I do agree per your honourable comment... OOXML in any form[1] is certainly not standard, nor is it open. So what _would_ you call it if you were not going to call it what it really is (proprietary)? Honestly, we shouldn't be trying to be politically correct, but rather honest, if not bluntly so. Call out Microsoft on their lack of following even their own standard; it'll have a greater impact as the community rallies behind that instead of trying to be politically correct and let them get away with doing what they've done. A goose by any other name is still a goose. Ben [1] Even Microsoft makes no qualms about not following ISO OOXML or even giving you options so that you know you are writing ISO OOXML - transitional or strict. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Em 01-01-2011 18:58, Sveinn í Felli escreveu: Þann lau 1.jan 2011 19:57, skrifaði NoOp: On 12/31/2010 02:18 AM, Sveinn í Felli wrote: (snip) I'm more interested in something like the mso2ooo: http://leapon.net/en/mso2ooo-batch-convert-microsoft-office-documents-openoffice-documents (snip) Best, Sveinn LibreOffice and OpenOffice already have a batch file format converter as a wizzard since relase 1 . Any hint on where this one is better or worse than the native one? Regards -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Supporting OOXML Strict today would make LO not compatible with MS Office, and users do want interoperability and not just standard compliance. Anyone remember Netscape? It supported the W3C standards, Internet Explorer did not. But, MS, through Frontpage etc., flooded the market with non-standard HTML. To the user, it appeared that Netscape was broken. As a few people have said, reading .docx (in whichever version) is needed. Else, LibO appears to be broken. However, which version would we write to? There is not even a 100% guarantee that Word 2014 will support the ISO version of OOXML. Maybe it will support Word 2010's version. Maybe it will be slightly different (again). Sounds like trying to hit a moving target. If Word had full ODT import (and hence, complied with at least one ISO standard), this would not be an issue. I'm glad I'm not making the decision! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Þann sun 2.jan 2011 10:03, skrifaði Olivier Hallot: Hi Em 01-01-2011 18:58, Sveinn í Felli escreveu: Þann lau 1.jan 2011 19:57, skrifaði NoOp: On 12/31/2010 02:18 AM, Sveinn í Felli wrote: (snip) I'm more interested in something like the mso2ooo: http://leapon.net/en/mso2ooo-batch-convert-microsoft-office-documents-openoffice-documents (snip) Best, Sveinn LibreOffice and OpenOffice already have a batch file format converter as a wizzard since relase 1 . Any hint on where this one is better or worse than the native one? Regards Does it support (read/convert from) .docx/..xlsx etc. ? Sveinn -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Is anyone else getting the impression that this thread is polarising into US v rest of world? We've seen several people say that they have to accept what their customers provide and can't go back to the customer and say can you provide this in another format?. To me that's an attitude which I, rightly or wrongly, associate with the US. In Europe we just fire away an email and get the file back again in another format. And the other side of the coin, as others have said, outside the US more and more governments and non-US corporations are going over to FLOSS, whereas in the US, Microsoft is dominant. If this is the case, we're never going to reach concensus on this topic. Personally I've already signed up on Larry's side. How about this for a compromise: LibO comes with support to read docx (which it converts to ODT), but not to write it. When someone tries to write it, a notice comes up saying in effect that docx is a broken format which even MS doesn't think much of, and that LibO, in the interests of free standards does not support it in vanilla mode. However, click on this button and we'll save in doc format. One might even provide two buttons (plus Cancel), Save as doc and Save as odt. But for the Americans and others who might want it, a downloadable module is provided which will write to docx format. Then we turn the matter over to the educators, communicators and marketers to educate, communicate with and market to the North American continent. Then those who want it can get docx compatibility, but they have to make an active choice and they're told it's risky and why. //James -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/11 4:50 PM, James Wilde wrote: LibO comes with support to read docx (which it converts to ODT), but not to write it. When someone tries to write it, a notice comes up saying in effect that docx is a broken format which even MS doesn't think much of, and that LibO, in the interests of free standards does not support it in vanilla mode. However, click on this button and we'll save in doc format. One might even provide two buttons (plus Cancel), Save as doc and Save as odt. LibreOffice reads and writes OOXML, and I do not think that changing this behaviour can bring any advantage over the current situation in any geography. Most corporate users in Europe use OOXML if their company has switched to Office 2007, and they are not knowledgeable about document format. Avoiding the support of OOXML is not the best choice for the people that have to interoperate with these users. Of course, we are going to educate users about standard formats, but this is not going to happen if we refuse to support a format or tell that OOXML is a broken format. We can get respect only if we respect our competitors. We are not here to fight Microsoft, and the OOXML support is not an assessment of the quality of the format (as it was for DOC, XLS and PPT). -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
IMO, to put the write part on an external extension is a good idea. There are other extensions for import export (like OpenOffice.org2GoogleDocs that gives export capabilities to GoogleDocs, Zoho and WebDAV) I still think that there are too many thing on save as dialogue that should go on export instead, but moving at least this conflictive ooxml part to an extension could bring some peace 2011/1/2 James Wilde wilde.ja...@gmail.com: Is anyone else getting the impression that this thread is polarising into US v rest of world? We've seen several people say that they have to accept what their customers provide and can't go back to the customer and say can you provide this in another format?. To me that's an attitude which I, rightly or wrongly, associate with the US. In Europe we just fire away an email and get the file back again in another format. And the other side of the coin, as others have said, outside the US more and more governments and non-US corporations are going over to FLOSS, whereas in the US, Microsoft is dominant. If this is the case, we're never going to reach concensus on this topic. Personally I've already signed up on Larry's side. How about this for a compromise: LibO comes with support to read docx (which it converts to ODT), but not to write it. When someone tries to write it, a notice comes up saying in effect that docx is a broken format which even MS doesn't think much of, and that LibO, in the interests of free standards does not support it in vanilla mode. However, click on this button and we'll save in doc format. One might even provide two buttons (plus Cancel), Save as doc and Save as odt. But for the Americans and others who might want it, a downloadable module is provided which will write to docx format. Then we turn the matter over to the educators, communicators and marketers to educate, communicate with and market to the North American continent. Then those who want it can get docx compatibility, but they have to make an active choice and they're told it's risky and why. //James -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/1/2011 6:50 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote: Barbara, First, ODF IS the ISO standard - honestly made so without the dirty tricks that MS used to stuff the committee and force it to approve something that wasn't ready to be used by anyone. I recognize that, of course. But like it or not (and I'm definitely in the not camp), OOXML can also claim to be a standard after the ISO shenanigans. Second, MS refuses to support any ODF except the one that is actually an ISO standard. That makes their version of ODF suspect as to its actual compatibility. Exactly. That's why I don't recommend sending OOo/LibO ODF to MS-only shops, the XP formats are more interoperable. And the way MS chose to implement what is actually in the standard seems to have taken advantage of the details that were left unspecified to force incompatibility with existing ODF implementations, even if both adhered strictly to the existing ODF specification. I don't suggest using the same tactics on MS as it is using on Open Source Software. Doing to others as they do to you is NOT a recommended tactic for honest people or organizations (though it's too often been used, in my arrogant opinion [There AIN'T no such thing as a humble opinion]). Is that what you think it would be to implement the OOXML Strict formats? I sure don't see it that way -- we would simply be supporting an ISO standard, however it was arrived at. The fact that we could possibly do it before MS does is not doing to others as they do to you IMNSHO. I just think it would be great if LibO became the reference implementation! By being able to read .doc and .docx formats LO demonstrates it's willingness to at least reach out to MS and its customers. Therefore, LO ends up being the good guy. Craig Tyche Right. That's why I think it's a good move to read them. The issue is about writing the Transitional formats. Do you think we have to do that to claim the moral high ground? On 01/01/2011 03:29 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: On 1/1/2011 11:07 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Hi Sveinn, Sure, but how about conservation and readability by future generations (when there's no more Microsoft knowledge around and nobody knows anymore how to decrypt all the nuances of.doc + .docx files) ? Fair point. But: most users do not care. Not exporting to Word will make it look like LibO is faulty. I have to save in MSO formats to share work with others. At work, we have an MSO policy. While I can use whatever I like on my desktop, I have to save spreadsheets in MSO formats because Excel 07 kills ODS formulae. If I prepare a document as ODT, the few Word 2003 dies-hards complain I am refusing to inter-operate. I do still assign student work to be submitted as either .doc or .odt and mark students down for using .docx (they failed to read the instructions). They are also marked down for not using proper spacing and a serif font. I don't want to see the .docx format spread any further and advocate using ODT as the default. However, not having the option to export as .doc and .docx will cause users to wonder if they want to promote LibO. I don't think anybody is saying LibO should drop .doc export -- just not try to export to the OOXML Transitional formats. In theory, MS will go to OOXML Strict in the 2014 (or whenever) release, and that should by then be a truly open format, if the comments submitted to the standards committee are properly worked off. Meanwhile, exporting to the Transitional form for new documents is specifically deprecated in the ISO standard; doing that really plays into a possible MS strategy to continue to ignore the Strict version forever, maintaining the proprietary lock-in while claiming to be open. Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/1/2011 7:53 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 01/01/2011 11:29 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! Standards support is a thorny field. The reality is that no one supports a standard by default, but only with a specific choice in configuration (including LibreOffice with ODF, as 1.2 is not yet the standard format and 1.2 Extended is not going to be a standard). Supporting OOXML Strict today would make LO not compatible with MS Office, and users do want interoperability and not just standard compliance. Yes, that's why I think that it could make sense to write the Transitiional formats, with appropriate warnings, at least for editing an existing document created in that form. But if we offered both choices in the SaveAs, the way we support a number of different older MS formats with appropriate version labeling, people could still choose the interoperable format. I'm not saying we should go to Strict only. That would indeed be wrong, leading people to think that they could create a .docx (for example) that would be interoperable when it is not. So I guess that's saying that a new document could be created and saved as the Transitional format, at least as soon as we also offered the Strict format. I just think we could avoid that situation until that point, though, as long as the XP formats are reasonably interoperable. A new document created in LibO and saved in an XP format should not violate interoperability, as long as MS continues to support that format. If they dropped XP format support before we had a Strict version available, I agree we'd have to allow writing new Transitional documents at that point. I'm just leery of doing it now. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
I agree with your premises. Having been a CAD operator who, at times, had to send drawing files to others, I felt it was MY responsibility to find out what the other person could read, or at least provide him/her with a way to contact me if there were problems opening the file. This carried over to text and spreadsheet files, too, since with both drawing files and text - spreadsheet files even the version number could affect the person's ability to open the file. I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of the vanilla release. Craig Tyche On 01/02/2011 08:50 AM, James Wilde wrote: Is anyone else getting the impression that this thread is polarising into US v rest of world? We've seen several people say that they have to accept what their customers provide and can't go back to the customer and say can you provide this in another format?. To me that's an attitude which I, rightly or wrongly, associate with the US. In Europe we just fire away an email and get the file back again in another format. And the other side of the coin, as others have said, outside the US more and more governments and non-US corporations are going over to FLOSS, whereas in the US, Microsoft is dominant. If this is the case, we're never going to reach concensus on this topic. Personally I've already signed up on Larry's side. How about this for a compromise: LibO comes with support to read docx (which it converts to ODT), but not to write it. When someone tries to write it, a notice comes up saying in effect that docx is a broken format which even MS doesn't think much of, and that LibO, in the interests of free standards does not support it in vanilla mode. However, click on this button and we'll save in doc format. One might even provide two buttons (plus Cancel), Save as doc and Save as odt. But for the Americans and others who might want it, a downloadable module is provided which will write to docx format. Then we turn the matter over to the educators, communicators and marketers to educate, communicate with and market to the North American continent. Then those who want it can get docx compatibility, but they have to make an active choice and they're told it's risky and why. //James -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Craig, Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form. On 02/01/2011 00:50, Craig A. Eddy wrote: Barbara, First, ODF IS the ISO standard - honestly made so without the dirty tricks that MS used to stuff the committee and force it to approve something that wasn't ready to be used by anyone. Second, MS refuses to support any ODF except the one that is actually an ISO standard. That makes their version of ODF suspect as to its actual compatibility. I don't suggest using the same tactics on MS as it is using on Open Source Software. Doing to others as they do to you is NOT a recommended tactic for honest people or organizations (though it's too often been used, in my arrogant opinion [There AIN'T no such thing as a humble opinion]). By being able to read .doc and .docx formats LO demonstrates it's willingness to at least reach out to MS and its customers. Therefore, LO ends up being the good guy. Craig Tyche -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 01/02/2011 09:08 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: --- SNIP --- Is that what you think it would be to implement the OOXML Strict formats? I sure don't see it that way -- we would simply be supporting an ISO standard, however it was arrived at. The fact that we could possibly do it before MS does is not doing to others as they do to you IMNSHO. I just think it would be great if LibO became the reference implementation! I don't think LO could implement the writing of OOXML in ANY format that would be compatible to MS. And to try to do so would simply imply that LO was broken (in MS's words, anyway). By being able to read .doc and .docx formats LO demonstrates it's willingness to at least reach out to MS and its customers. Therefore, LO ends up being the good guy. Craig Tyche Right. That's why I think it's a good move to read them. The issue is about writing the Transitional formats. Do you think we have to do that to claim the moral high ground? I don't feel that writing any of the OOXML formats would claim the moral high ground. I think writing OOXML would be like trying to hit a 10 inch randomly moving target from an aircraft at 10,000 feet moving in the opposite direction. First, you gotta get close and limit its possible movements. Right now, that's just not possible. Look how long it took to come up with a reasonably compatible version of doc to write. Nope, writing back as doc is good enough at this point. SNIP Craig Tyche -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/11 17:07, Mark Preston wrote: Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form. My understanding is that Microsoft intends to implement strict OOXML gradually, with each successive release of Microsoft Office using an increasingly 'strict' form of transitional OOXML. Assuming that I am correct in this assumption, does it not make sense that Microsoft will make each successive version of their transitional OOXML backwards compatible with their last and that they will release updates or add-ons to ensure forward compatibility for older products (Office 2007 and 2010). Those are of course unfounded assumptions, but reasonable ones none the less. Thus if this is the case, we're not talking about maintaining support for 3+ different versions of OOXML but rather maintaining support for the latest version of Microsoft's transitional OOXML (and perhaps strict OOXML) which should (eventually) become strict OOXML. Now I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I understand it, an open standard) so why would you have an issue with implementing by graduations (in line with Microsoft) strict OOXML via a series of transitional specifications? Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- In order to offer someone a financial reward without him working for it, the government must first ensure that somebody else works for a financial reward without getting it. There is no other way. -- Douglas Wilson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011/01/02 11:24 AM Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 6:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote: Nope, writing back as doc is good enough at this point. Definitely not. LibreOffice writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is not under discussion. Our developers have the right skills to decide about the quality and the features of the filter. LibreOffice should not write OOXML. That is under discussion in this thread. Who gave you the right to say it is not under discussion? Isn't this a community project? When did the community decide that writing OOXML has to be included in LibreOffice? I think the point was that the developers will decide whether to support OOXML or not. It is up to them if they decide to take notice of the conflicting opinions on this list. Bob -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: It is a community decision, not a developer decision. The developers, that is the people doing the work, will decide what LO does and does not do. I'm sure those good hard working folk will take into account discussions here and no doubt elsewhere. But the decision rests with them. What will you do if they decide other than what you want. Buy Microsoft instead? Bob -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 2011-01-02 12:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote: I don't think LO could implement the writing of OOXML in ANY format that would be compatible to MS. And to try to do so would simply imply that LO was broken (in MS's words, anyway). What are you talking about? As has been pointed out numerous times, LibO *already* *does* write OOXML. I'm glad you're not the decision maker... -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 11:35:24 AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker (gbpli...@gmail.com) wrote: On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? Uh??? In that part of your message you had made a purely technical assertion. You had said that email CLIENTS (i.e. not the actual people sending email, but the software programs they use) always reply in the same format in which the original message was received. I only noticed that this purely technical assertion of yours IS wrong because it is an undeniable fact (for which I personally bear NO responsibility...) that the sending format in most email clients is only a *default* that users can change as they please, not to mention that some email clients only send as plain text. You made a technical assertion, I replied at the same level. If you think a technical default setting of most email clients (i.e. not the way people use or configure them) is totally arrogant, yell at their developers, not at me. If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. Sure. But it's still wrong, as I already pointed out, to mix txt-vs-html email with ODF-vs-OOXML, because HTML is really open and not controlled by one company, OOXML is a totally different situation. So if you really need to insist in this thread (and I take the fact that you only replied at my last paragraph as a sign that you agree with everything else I wrote), at least please drop email examples entirely. Marco F. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 2 January 2011 10:50, James Wilde wilde.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone else getting the impression that this thread is polarising into US v rest of world? We've seen several people say that they have to accept what their customers provide and can't go back to the customer and say can you provide this in another format?. To me that's an attitude which I, rightly or wrongly, associate with the US. In Europe we just fire away an email and get the file back again in another format. I beg to differ. I have worked in France, Luxembourg and now the UK and in every single case MS Office is the standard that everybody uses, both at work and at home. Most of them are not even aware that alternatives exist and the first thing they ask when you suggest they use open source is whether it is fully compatible with MS Office. If I were to ask any of my European customers to provide documents in another format, they would first have an issue finding a format that they can write to (they don't have the ODF plugins, they can't produce PDF and RTF tends to be too limited for their needs), then assuming they can find a file format that we can both read and write, they would do it once, maybe twice but the third time they would ask me to stop being a pain in the backside and get myself a copy of MS Office. And the other side of the coin, as others have said, outside the US more and more governments and non-US corporations are going over to FLOSS, whereas in the US, Microsoft is dominant. Some governments and organisations have allegedly moved to FLOSS but I've not yet encountered one in real life. People are starting to take notice of FLOSS but they only consider it if they have a smooth migration path and that includes being able to interact seamlessly with their existing software install base and with their customers and suppliers. If you make the migration path difficult, they won't migrate. And considering how ubiquitous office documents are in the average enterprise, migrating means supporting the MS Office formats along the ODF ones. If this is the case, we're never going to reach concensus on this topic. Personally I've already signed up on Larry's side. How about this for a compromise: LibO comes with support to read docx (which it converts to ODT), but not to write it. When someone tries to write it, a notice comes up saying in effect that docx is a broken format which even MS doesn't think much of, and that LibO, in the interests of free standards does not support it in vanilla mode. However, click on this button and we'll save in doc format. One might even provide two buttons (plus Cancel), Save as doc and Save as odt. This argument has been tried before with web standards and other document formats. Unfortunately, it's an argument that FLOSS cannot win. Not because the FLOSS point of view is wrong but because the argument goes well above the heads of the majority of users. From their point of view, they use MS Office all the time, it produces the types of documents they need. The way most non-technical users see it (and a large number of technical users too), if LibreOffice can't read and write MS Office documents then LibreOffice is broken. Besides, saying that docx is broken and suggesting to save to doc feels counter productive to me: even though docx is far from being perfect, it's still a lot more open and free than doc. But for the Americans and others who might want it, a downloadable module is provided which will write to docx format. Then we turn the matter over to the educators, communicators and marketers to educate, communicate with and market to the North American continent. Then those who want it can get docx compatibility, but they have to make an active choice and they're told it's risky and why. Ubuntu tried exactly that for non-free codecs: install only free codecs by default but give the users the possibility to add non-free codecs through the extras package later on. In the latest release (10.10 -- Maverick Meerkat), they actually made it easier for users to install non-free codecs by making it an option in the installation wizard. The reason for it was that the non-free codecs package was not easily discoverable for new users and not installing them by default generated a lot of queries in the forums. So maybe it would be useful to learn from the Ubuntu experience, provide a single version of LibreOffice and include an option in the installation wizard to install support for OOXML or not, with an explanation about what that choice means. My £0.02 Bruno -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/11 7:49 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote: Does it? And to what degree of compatibility? Also, this was code that was brought in from GO-OO which, as you may be aware, was developed by Novell UNDER CONTRACT TO MS. No, I'm not hollering FLOSS, here. I'm trying to get you to understand that there are copyright and patent issues here that could embroil LO in legal battles that it really doesn't need. OOXML has been cleared from copyright and patent issues by Microsoft itself before entering into the standardization process, as this is a pre-condition of ISO standards. In addition, all Microsoft document formats and related technologies are now fully documented (also those totally proprietary). It looks like many people have not followed the OOXML standardization process. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/2011 12:01 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote: On 01/02/2011 10:46 AM, Lee Hyde wrote: SNIP My understanding is that Microsoft intends to implement strict OOXML gradually, with each successive release of Microsoft Office using an increasingly 'strict' form of transitional OOXML. Assuming that I am correct in this assumption, does it not make sense that Microsoft will make each successive version of their transitional OOXML backwards compatible with their last and that they will release updates or add-ons to ensure forward compatibility for older products (Office 2007 and 2010). I, personally, cannot make that presumption, based on previous experience with Microsoft. There is a dichotomy between what MS says and what it does. And an even wider one between what one might presume and what MS does. SNIP Now I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I understand it, an open standard) so why would you have an issue with implementing by graduations (in line with Microsoft) strict OOXML via a series of transitional specifications? I'm concerned by what you mean by an open standard. To me, open means free to use and free to see. From what I understand of the OOXML ISO as it was passed there are a lot of MS add-ons that are proprietary, as well as a lot of binary blobs that are proprietary. Also a number of definitions that are so vague that they are, for all intents and purposed, unable to be implemented as written. Therefore, I can not look at OOXML as being and OPEN standard. Yes, it is a standard (to Microsoft's eternal shame). But OPEN it is NOT. Are those faults true of the Strict version (at least, after incorporation of comments), or only of the Transitional version? My understanding was that the Strict form can become truly open. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. SNIP Craig Tyche -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/11 18:49, Craig A. Eddy wrote: I'm trying to get you to understand that there are copyright and patent issues here that could embroil LO in legal battles that it really doesn't need. Just out of curiosity, were Microsoft to enforce their copyright over their version of OOXML, is it not proper legal etiquette to request removal of the offending code *before* taking the issue to court? If that is the case, LibO could simply remove the offending code in an update and publicise this new-found lack of interoperability with Microsoft Office is a direct result Microsoft’s litigious behaviour. Such would be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft would it not, and against its own best interests. Also, are there any previous cases where a proprietary standard has been withdrawn or locked down via legal action such as this? Lee Hyde. -- We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism. -- Emma Goldman, What is Patriotism? (1908) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/2011 12:47 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 7:15 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: No, that was not the point. Italo Vignoli wrote: LibreOffice writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is not under discussion. That is the point I objected to. I might have been too harsh, but I reiterate the fact that this is not under discussion. TDF is a community based project, but decisions have to be taken by people in charge of taking them, and in this case these people are in the ESC (Engineering Steering Committee). The se are the bylaws of TDF (you are free to check). I am a member of the Steering Committee, and I totally second this decision just because it makes sense for the users (as I have tried to explain in another message). LibreOffice is the office suite with the widest document format support, and this is a plus. As long as OOXML is a standard recognized by ISO, it makes sense to support it completely. This is different from the fact that we are trying to make ODF the only winning standard, and that we are telling people that they should not use OOXML. It should be a community decision, not one made by the developers. Or based on LibreOffice being based on Go-OO code which already had OOXML write support because of the Novell agreement with Microsoft. I think that your problem is the Microsoft/Novell agreement, as you have mentioned it several times. This belongs to the AGAINST saga that we do not want to pursue. Writing OOXML is FOR interoperability, and so it is better than not writing OOXML because is AGAINST Microsoft. In addition, TDF is a software project, and therefore some decisions have to be taken by people professional at developing software. If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to contribute to the code and you will soon be able to talk to the ESC, or maybe become a member of the ESC. TDF is a community driven project, not a mailing list driven project. Community is not just writing in a mailing list, is a lot different and a lot more than that. I do not think that we ever gave the perception that this is a mailing list driven project. Italo, one of the things that would make me (and maybe others here) feel better about OOXML support is if writing to the XP formats causes LibO to make compromises that do not have to be made going to OOXML. That is, if documents developed under an ODF application can be converted to a higher-quality product, in terms of compatibility of features and formatting, when going to OOXML (even in the Transitional formats) than they can when going to XP. Is that the case? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/11 19:01, Larry Gusaas wrote: No. What is included is a community decision, not just the developers. My interpretation is that *The Document Foundation* and *LibreOffice* projects are driven more by informal consensus rather than democracy per se. That is to say that the various steering committees make their final decisions based upon a mixture of community opinion, technical and pragmatic considerations. An efficient community driven project has to give greater weight to the latter of these three (technical and pragmatic considerations) whilst also taking on board *valid* community discussion. It would seem, thus, that the engineering steering committee have decided that the arguments against implementing OOXML are outweighed by the technical and pragmatic benefits of full interoperability with the world leading office suite (which perhaps lamentably is Microsoft Office). The politics of this decision may be contentious to the community (or rather this mailing list) but basing decisions on a political platform such as this will only lead to LibO falling into obscurity because it doesn't *just work*. Regards, Lee Hyde. -- The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes, will preserve civilization. -- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 19:58:41 PM +0100, Italo Vignoli (italo.vign...@gmail.com) wrote: OOXML has been cleared from copyright and patent issues by Microsoft itself before entering into the standardization process, as this is a pre-condition of ISO standards. In addition, all Microsoft document formats and related technologies are now fully documented (also those totally proprietary). It looks like many people have not followed the OOXML standardization process. Italo, I HAVE tried to follow that process as much as I could through the years, and my understanding, from the links below and many others, is that, in practice, even today things aren't really so easy, 100% clear and risk-free with OOXML. http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/03/what-should-happen-with-ooxmlo.html http://techrights.org/2010/01/11/ooxml-depending-on-country/ http://techrights.org/2010/10/03/amicus-briefs-in-i4i-vs-microsoft/ http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/02/by-metes-and-bounds.html http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html Marco F. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello everyone, 2011/1/2 M. Fioretti mfiore...@nexaima.net On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 19:58:41 PM +0100, Italo Vignoli (italo.vign...@gmail.com) wrote: OOXML has been cleared from copyright and patent issues by Microsoft itself before entering into the standardization process, as this is a pre-condition of ISO standards. In addition, all Microsoft document formats and related technologies are now fully documented (also those totally proprietary). It looks like many people have not followed the OOXML standardization process. Italo, I HAVE tried to follow that process as much as I could through the years, and my understanding, from the links below and many others, is that, in practice, even today things aren't really so easy, 100% clear and risk-free with OOXML. http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/03/what-should-happen-with-ooxmlo.html http://techrights.org/2010/01/11/ooxml-depending-on-country/ http://techrights.org/2010/10/03/amicus-briefs-in-i4i-vs-microsoft/ http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/02/by-metes-and-bounds.html http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html I would like, if possible, to appease everyone here by clarifying two questions. - to my knowledge most of the OOXML intellectual property has been indeed cleared from most issues, although Marco rightly pointed to some existing inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its users: if it weren't I would suggest not to import/export in the old .doc format as well, as it would follow the same pattern of thoughts. - I would like to clarify that when we talk about a community, we do talk about a community of contributors. I hope everyone has read our bylaws. It's not just developers who contribute (yes, also QA testers among others) but it's not anyone posting on a mailing list. In fact, posting on a mailing list is not exactly a contribution. LibO is a meritocracy, not a shoutocracy or a democracy. What Italo was explaining was that the choice to offer save as OOXML (again, the format you find MS Office 2007 and 2010) has been made by the people who contribute code at this stage. As the bylaws will progressively become effective, we will gain more and more contributors and perhaps this choice, through contributions, will change. But at this stage it's unnecessary to argue over that on mailing lists. Thank you. Charles-H. Schulz Co-Founder, The Document Foundation sometimes Member of the OASIS Consortium BoD. Marco F. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Larry Gusaas wrote (02-01-11 20:09) On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM Italo Vignoli wrote: If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to contribute to the code So only people who write code have a say in the development of LibreOffice? What about people who do the QA? Or the people providing support? (I mainly provide support for OOo, mainly for Mac users) Hmm, of course not. Luckily there is cooperation between people doing (all sorts of) QA, helping with user experience (design) topics and the developers. So that all helps and leads to choices being made. Regards, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Italo, one of the things that would make me (and maybe others here) feel better about OOXML support is if writing to the XP formats causes LibO to make compromises that do not have to be made going to OOXML. That is, if documents developed under an ODF application can be converted to a higher-quality product, in terms of compatibility of features and formatting, when going to OOXML (even in the Transitional formats) than they can when going to XP. Is that the case? Writing in a different format from the native one is always a problem, and causes a number of compromises. The advantage of OOXML over the old MS proprietary formats is that is based on XML and therefore is similar to ODF in the sense that is a container of the document components (once you have unzipped the file, you get a number of folders and files with all the contents). The better choice is always the native format, though, and we will always promote this choice. Writing support of OOXML is important for interoperability, which is a key user requirement. I do not know if writing OOXML has a higher level of compromises than writing in the old MS proprietary formats, because I am not a technical expert and I trust on developers and engineers for these issues. I suppose that there are different compromises. I know that OOXML is a Microsoft format with many problems. I have been involved in the entire standardization process, and I was against the standardization of OOXML. But once the standard has been approved, I have stopped fighting the document format, because I think is more important to direct my efforts towards user requirements. Please remember that TDF will strive FOR and not AGAINST, and this is a typical situation where if you are FOR user requirements you have to forget that you are AGAINST OOXML. FOR is always stronger than AGAINST. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
HI Em 02-01-2011 15:48, Larry Gusaas escreveu: On 2011/01/02 11:24 AM Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 6:20 PM, Craig A. Eddy wrote: (snip) LibreOffice should not write OOXML. That is under discussion in this thread. Who gave you the right to say it is not under discussion? Isn't this a community project? When did the community decide that writing OOXML has to be included in LibreOffice? Larry Allow me to jump in: If TDF and its developers decide not to implement OOXML, then someone, somewhere, someday, with or without TDF or community blessing, will implement it, as a fork or as an extension. That is why free software is for. -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Italo, one of the things that would make me (and maybe others here) feel better about OOXML support is if writing to the XP formats causes LibO to make compromises that do not have to be made going to OOXML. That is, if documents developed under an ODF application can be converted to a higher-quality product, in terms of compatibility of features and formatting, when going to OOXML (even in the Transitional formats) than they can when going to XP. Is that the case? Writing in a different format from the native one is always a problem, and causes a number of compromises. The advantage of OOXML over the old MS proprietary formats is that is based on XML and therefore is similar to ODF in the sense that is a container of the document components (once you have unzipped the file, you get a number of folders and files with all the contents). The better choice is always the native format, though, and we will always promote this choice. It would be good to know which works better for interoperability when sent to an MS-only shop -- ODF or the current OOXML. In other words, is the LibO version of OOXML a better product than the MS version of ODF? Very interesting, if so. I'd like to know which to recommend. And of course the Sun(free)/Oracle(not free) plugin for MS Office is a player in this question, too. I know it's better than the MS ODF, but how does it compare to the LibO OOXML? Writing support of OOXML is important for interoperability, which is a key user requirement. I do not know if writing OOXML has a higher level of compromises than writing in the old MS proprietary formats, because I am not a technical expert and I trust on developers and engineers for these issues. I suppose that there are different compromises. I guess the key issue is whether this writing should essentially be given LibO's official sanction (that is, by being included without reservation in the SaveAs dialogs, and in the Tools Options settings for defaults), or simply available as a deprecated format when forced into it. I agree that sending back an XP format given an OOXML one is likely to cause problems for LibO (that seems to be what OOo does, opening them as Read-Only with an XP extension and a constructed name that has no relation to the original). I would definitely be against removing the capability to write those formats altogether; but the official sanction of them does not seem necessary. I know that OOXML is a Microsoft format with many problems. I have been involved in the entire standardization process, and I was against the standardization of OOXML. But once the standard has been approved, I have stopped fighting the document format, because I think is more important to direct my efforts towards user requirements. Please remember that TDF will strive FOR and not AGAINST, and this is a typical situation where if you are FOR user requirements you have to forget that you are AGAINST OOXML. In my view, the user requirement is for the best possible interoperability. So I'd like to know what that is -- and there still seems to be a possibility that for new documents constructed in LibO, writing the XP formats provides better interoperability than writing the OOXML ones. That's not a FOR or AGAINST issue, it's a matter of product quality. Giving a SaveAs choice for the OOXML format, indicating that it is for recent Office versions, definitely leads people in the OOXML direction whether that has better interoperability or not. If it does, so be it -- though I'd still like to see a warning that it's not really an open standard. If people are in an environment that encourages or mandates use of open standards, this isn't one! FOR is always stronger than AGAINST. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/2011 19:09, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM Italo Vignoli wrote: If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to contribute to the code So only people who write code have a say in the development of LibreOffice? What about people who do the QA? Or the people providing support? (I mainly provide support for OOo, mainly for Mac users) You can take your elitist developer attitude and stuff it. Larry Larry, There is more heat than light now. I haven't counted, but my clear sense is that considerably more contributors to this thread have, however reluctantly, come down on the side of retaining the functionality of writing OOXML. In that sense, a 'decision' is made, even though it's the ESC who ultimately decide. Nevertheless, as you seem to imply, the OOO/LibO development process has always been broken. In an effective development process (eg Firefox), the contents of the next release, including a positive decision on those bugs to be resolved, are decided by a steering committee. Work continues until all of that activity is complete and the release is ready. It is common for releases to be delayed because things are not ready. With this process, releases have very few bugs. In an ineffective development process (eg OOO), the contents of the next release are set in large part by developers setting release targets for the bits of work they choose to focus on. If I understand correctly, the steering committee influences new functionality content, but not substantially the bug fix content of a release. Thus the content of the work, particularly bug fixes, is in large measure determined by developer interest rather than priority or end user wishes. A deadline for release contents is fixed and anything not ready at this date is put back to a later release, even P2 bug issues. Very serious issues are fixed after the chosen date, but nothing else. With this process, releases inevitably have an increasing number of bugs. This is a cultural and organisational issue, not a result of an Open Source project. I hope TDF will recognise this and address it. -- Mike Hall www.onepoyle.net -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 2 January 2011 17:19, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com wrote: On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: [snip] It would be good to know which works better for interoperability when sent to an MS-only shop -- ODF or the current OOXML. In other words, is the LibO version of OOXML a better product than the MS version of ODF? Very interesting, if so. I'd like to know which to recommend. And of course the Sun(free)/Oracle(not free) plugin for MS Office is a player in this question, too. I know it's better than the MS ODF, but how does it compare to the LibO OOXML? OOXML wins hands down in this use case. Not because the LibO/OOo OOXML is better than the Microsoft ODF or Sun/Oracle plugin for MS Office but because the vast majority of MS-only shops don't bother installing support for ODF in the first place. I went through this with a customer recently: it ended up being a lot easier for me to output OOXML or good old DOC than for them to install the right plugins to read ODF. This is compounded by the fact that a lot of MS-only shops are large companies that still use Windows XP with an old version of Office. Bruno -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/2011 4:56 PM, Bruno Girin wrote: On 2 January 2011 17:19, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com wrote: On 1/2/2011 2:29 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 8:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: [snip] It would be good to know which works better for interoperability when sent to an MS-only shop -- ODF or the current OOXML. In other words, is the LibO version of OOXML a better product than the MS version of ODF? Very interesting, if so. I'd like to know which to recommend. And of course the Sun(free)/Oracle(not free) plugin for MS Office is a player in this question, too. I know it's better than the MS ODF, but how does it compare to the LibO OOXML? OOXML wins hands down in this use case. Not because the LibO/OOo OOXML is better than the Microsoft ODF or Sun/Oracle plugin for MS Office but because the vast majority of MS-only shops don't bother installing support for ODF in the first place. I went through this with a customer recently: it ended up being a lot easier for me to output OOXML or good old DOC than for them to install the right plugins to read ODF. This is compounded by the fact that a lot of MS-only shops are large companies that still use Windows XP with an old version of Office. Bruno I was under the impression that the vanilla versions of Office since 2007 SP2 could read and write ODF formats, with no need to install any plugins (but with their own special twist on ODF). From what you say here, that is not true; I haven't installed Office in a long time, and don't intend to, so I didn't know that ODF support was not automatic. (Actually, I'm glad it isn't! There's less chance of the MS version co-opting the market.) Obviously those shops using the old versions of Office need the corresponding version-specific formats, not OOXML in any form, and hopefully they'll tell their correspondents which one. For the case where the version is unknown, the XP format is the still the safest if you are originating a new document to send them that they'll need to be able to edit. And maybe it is the best even if you know they have a recent version -- that's still not clear. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/11 1:12 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: I was under the impression that the vanilla versions of Office since 2007 SP2 could read and write ODF formats, with no need to install any plugins (but with their own special twist on ODF). From what you say here, that is not true; I haven't installed Office in a long time, and don't intend to, so I didn't know that ODF support was not automatic. ODF support is built in since MS Office 2007 SP2 for Windows. MS Office for MacOS does not support ODF, and there is not a plugin availble. The older version of MS Office do not support ODF, but there is a plugin available. We all know that Microsoft is trying to slow down ANY standard format, because format lock in is a long time strategy. I do not know if you are familiar with Gandhi statement: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. This is exactly what is happening for office suites. Gandhi won over the British empire being respectful of law and being an advocate of freedom. I do not have his moral strength, but I do follow his lesson. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Larry, all, Larry Gusaas schrieb: On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM Italo Vignoli wrote: If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to contribute to the code As I know Italo (not being a programmer himself) quite well, I know that his reply could have been easier for you to understand, if he added more information: Our community consists of several groups with several tasks. Every group has it's own expertize and inside these groups people know each other and know about their expertize and position in our community. Software development is done by code contributors. They can write the code they want, but only the code bringing more positive aspects than negative ones will be included in the package. If other groups see problems in some code contributions, they start to discuss this topic with the coders, providing them with the expertize on the specific context (User Experience is a good example, the topic here might belong to Marketing) and trying to convince them, that the negative aspects are more valid than the positive ones. If they don't get to a common conclusion, the last decision will be taken by the Board of Directors, at the moment by the Steering Committee until the BoD will have been elected. So only people who write code have a say in the development of LibreOffice? What about people who do the QA? Or the people providing support? (I mainly provide support for OOo, mainly for Mac users) I hope you understand the basis of meritocracy - so all the contributors are relevant in *their specific area of expertize* This thread shows several thoughts and positions towards the OOXML write support in LibO. Some people want to get rid of it, some want to have it moved to a different place in the program (export, extension), some want to provide a clearer description of the negative aspects of the format. Others want to keep it as it is and evolve it towards better quality. So how can we find out, which way is the right one to go? Surely not by following the loudest or most active posters in this thread. I don't know if you are involved deeply enough in our community to know about the position of one of another contributor to this thread. I'm quite sure that I miss some of the relevant people, but please have a look at the postings by the Steering Committee members: Thorsten Behrens (code developer), who mentioned that it is necessary to work on the OOXML filters now, because this is the only way to provide high quality at the time MS drops their .doc support. Italo Vignoli (marketing expert and official marketing contact for TDF) pointing several times to the necessity to provide the best solution for our (present and future) users, proposing to avoid any marketing strategy against Microsoft and to leave education about more open standard in ODF to our marketing group instead of removing existing code from the sources. I could mention Charles-H. Schulz, Sophie Gautier, Cor Nouws and others, but the main fact is: All the points mentioned in this thread have been taken into consideration by the Steering Committee and the developers. Thus it was really important to raise such kind of questions. We are a community where concerns are heard. But repeating them don't impose a higher relevance to them. So despite good reasons to abandon the write support for OOXML from our standard save-as dialog, the reasons to keep it are more important. It might be quite easy to change the wording of the warning text when saving in non-ODF document formats (different texts for MS proprietary and quasi-open formats might need more programming skills), so if someone provides an improved text as patch - or finds a programmer willing to build a patch from such wording - I'm quite sure that this will find positive consideration. In my eyes this thread has been reached a size that covers most of the aspects of the subject, so I'd like to see it ending soon. If someone is interested in collecting all the opinions mentioned here in a wiki page, it would be easier to point there, when someone (without knowledge of all the mails here) restarts a similar topic again. You can take your elitist developer attitude and stuff it. Pleas stop such comments, they don't lead to any positive result. Thanks in advance! Bernhard PS: And to come back on your very first statement, the agreement between Microsoft and Novell: Even if some Novell employees work on our code, even if they contributed Go-oo code - this doesn't mean that they have to follow their employers opinion in their spare time. TDF is open to contributors from more than one company, so dependency is much less relevant than at OOo. And if you have a look at the Credits page in your LibO version, you can compare the contributor's names with Go-oo contributors (or a list of Novell employees, if you have one): Only a minority of our contributors are paid by Novell. TDF
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011/01/02 8:51 PM Lee Hyde wrote: I haven't read anything from Italo that could be construed as condescension. Italo wrote: If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to contribute to the code and you will soon be able to talk to the ESC, or maybe become a member of the ESC. That is pure condescension. He is saying that because I do not write code my opinion is worthless and nobody will listen to me. No, that is not what he is saying. You are free to have any opinion you want, and you are free to back up that opinion with arguments and evidence. If your arguments and evidence are good, you may very well convince others to go along with your ideas. But ultimately someone or some group has to make the final decision about what is and is not going to be included. In the case of TDF, it is the ESC. The people in that group have the authority to make a final decision. What Italo is saying (from my reading) is that authority has to be earned, you have to convince others that you deserve that sort of authority. Anyone can have an opinion, and anyone can argue that opinion, but not everyone can make a final decision. That is what Italo was saying, and it isn't the least bit condescending. In short, anyone can have an opinion, but votes are restricted to only those who have earned it. You haven't, so your opinion has no more inherent value than any other random user's opinion. You have no more authority to dictate what LibreOffice will and will not do than me. As I recall, someone earlier defined the term*community* in the context of*The Document Foundation* to include all*contributors* and explicitly excluded those who 'contribute' to mailing list discussions from this broad group. Then why is this list called Discuss? Isn't this the place for discussions? Or should we quit wasting our time giving our opinions on the project? After all, if we do not write code we are not contributers to the community and have no say in the community. You are free to discuss, you are free to make your case, but you are not free to force your opinion on everyone else. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote: That is pure condescension. He is saying that because I do not write code my opinion is worthless and nobody will listen to me. That is hardly condescension, merely a statement of fact. The reality is, that if you or I want a greater say on matters such as these, the best way is to become a contributor proper. To do so merely demonstrates our qualifications to speak *authoritatively* on such matters. Furthermore, what you're arguing for is the intentional crippling of *LibreOffice* on political grounds! I suspect that such a view, were it expressed by God himself, would be ignored by any rational developer! On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote: Then why is this list called Discuss? Isn't this the place for discussions? Or should we quit wasting our time giving our opinions on the project? After all, if we do not write code we are not contributers to the community and have no say in the community. You have wholly misconstrued the meaning of my last e-mail. Yes, there is a *core community* of contributors whose opinions, backed by the verasity of their qualifications (as people who contribute code, GUI designs, etc...), are given greater weight and are perhaps more likely to reach the ears of the steering committee members. However, that should not preclude the contributions of we layman. It simply means that we have to *debate* our point in a well reasoned manor. Doing so increases the probability that our ideas will *inspire* or *chime with* those of one or more core contributors, and thus work their way up the greasy pole to one of the committee members. Also, I suspect that many if not all of the committee members frequent these mailing list, so if you can argue your case well you may well influence the project albeit in unseen ways. However, you do need to recognise that your opinions and ideas aren't necessarily going to chime with those of the developers. In such cases you'll either have to *put up* (learn to code or create some mock-ups to better illustrate your points) or *shut up*, because the reality is, no developer is going to work on an idea if (s)he doesn't agree with it and/or if there's no chance the steering committee is going to include it. This is *not* condescension in any sense, it is a recognition of the reality that not every opinion and idea can be implemented. In the context of this thread, two arguments have been made. One that favours interoperability for the sake of pragmatism and user experience, and one that favours crippling *LibreOffice* for the sake of politics and principals. In my humble opinion, the steering committee made the correct decision; *The Document Foundation* should not be bogged down by politics, else it'll run itself into the ground. Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. On 03/01/11 03:17, Larry Gusaas wrote: I guess I will quit wasting my time here and go back to just giving support to OpenOffice.org users. -- Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel -- Dr. Samuel Johnson (April 7th, 1775) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Sveinn, Sure, but how about conservation and readability by future generations (when there's no more Microsoft knowledge around and nobody knows anymore how to decrypt all the nuances of.doc + .docx files) ? Fair point. But: most users do not care. Not exporting to Word will make it look like LibO is faulty. I have to save in MSO formats to share work with others. At work, we have an MSO policy. While I can use whatever I like on my desktop, I have to save spreadsheets in MSO formats because Excel 07 kills ODS formulae. If I prepare a document as ODT, the few Word 2003 dies-hards complain I am refusing to inter-operate. I do still assign student work to be submitted as either .doc or .odt and mark students down for using .docx (they failed to read the instructions). They are also marked down for not using proper spacing and a serif font. I don't want to see the .docx format spread any further and advocate using ODT as the default. However, not having the option to export as .doc and .docx will cause users to wonder if they want to promote LibO. It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. my thoughts anyway! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 2011-01-01 12:07 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. And every time Microsoft drops support for legacy formats, the fact that LibO continues to support them will just be 'one more reason' that LibO is 'better'... :) -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
LibOffice on the web would be able to export in almost any format. We are often saying ms doesn't play well with others, and one of the benefits of open source and open standards DO play well with others , so let's commit to playing well with others. Wolf Halton PS happy new year. On Jan 1, 2011 12:36 PM, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote: On 2011-01-01 12:07 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. And every time Microsoft drops support for legacy formats, the fact that LibO continues to support them will just be 'one more reason' that LibO is 'better'... :) -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. my thoughts anyway Another consideration is that if we ignore docx until MS do drop .doc which is long term inevitable, we could end up playing catch up in order to get filter that are good enough to be credible. Better to start now and incrementally improve them over time. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Þann lau 1.jan 2011 19:57, skrifaði NoOp: On 12/31/2010 02:18 AM, Sveinn í Felli wrote: But I think that in a corporate context, a batch program for converting .doc and .docx to ODF would get some support and would/could ease the conversion. After all those years, there's a pile of .docs sitting on most PCs in this world. And having all the files in a same/similar format is an issue for many I've heard from. You might try: http://www.oooninja.com/2008/01/convert-openxml-docx-etc-in-linux-using.html [bit dated, but probably still works] Also see: http://katana.oooninja.com/w/odf-converter-integrator http://katana.oooninja.com/w/odf-converter-integrator/download Thanks, have not revisited this for a while. Seems these convert one file at a time. I'm more thinking about a program that could be run (maybe on first run of LibO ?) offering to convert all MSO files to their ODF equivalents, under same name, parsing all subfolders of a tree. Custom renaming, file exclusions and other stuff would be nice to have, but not mandatory. I'm more interested in something like the mso2ooo: http://leapon.net/en/mso2ooo-batch-convert-microsoft-office-documents-openoffice-documents The author even says that integration into OOo/LibO should be possible (for an OOoBasic-nerd): If someone could make the equivalent of mso2ooo.py in OpenOffice.org Basic, it would be just one step. Or integrate mso2ooo.py in mso2ooo.odt (OpenOffice.org documents can contain Python scripts, it’s just I can’t do it). This also solves the problem of Python in Windows. Best, Sveinn -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/1/2011 11:07 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Hi Sveinn, Sure, but how about conservation and readability by future generations (when there's no more Microsoft knowledge around and nobody knows anymore how to decrypt all the nuances of.doc + .docx files) ? Fair point. But: most users do not care. Not exporting to Word will make it look like LibO is faulty. I have to save in MSO formats to share work with others. At work, we have an MSO policy. While I can use whatever I like on my desktop, I have to save spreadsheets in MSO formats because Excel 07 kills ODS formulae. If I prepare a document as ODT, the few Word 2003 dies-hards complain I am refusing to inter-operate. I do still assign student work to be submitted as either .doc or .odt and mark students down for using .docx (they failed to read the instructions). They are also marked down for not using proper spacing and a serif font. I don't want to see the .docx format spread any further and advocate using ODT as the default. However, not having the option to export as .doc and .docx will cause users to wonder if they want to promote LibO. I don't think anybody is saying LibO should drop .doc export -- just not try to export to the OOXML Transitional formats. In theory, MS will go to OOXML Strict in the 2014 (or whenever) release, and that should by then be a truly open format, if the comments submitted to the standards committee are properly worked off. Meanwhile, exporting to the Transitional form for new documents is specifically deprecated in the ISO standard; doing that really plays into a possible MS strategy to continue to ignore the Strict version forever, maintaining the proprietary lock-in while claiming to be open. Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. my thoughts anyway! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Sat Jan 01 2011 10:27:02 GMT-0800 (PST) Ian Lynch wrote: Another consideration is that if we ignore docx until MS do drop .doc which is long term inevitable, we could end up playing catch up in order to get filter that are good enough to be credible. Better to start now and incrementally improve them over time. How can LibO or any OSS program expect to keep up with MS when they do not even follow their own standard? All that anyone has to go on is the standard published by the ISO but MS does not even support it as published. See http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx as reference. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Well, we need to be able to import those transitional OOXML (2007-2010) formats. If we can save to them, is not really necessary, (since MS office suites 2007 2010 support MS-Office 2003 FF too), but is a nice to have feature. The real ISO OOXML will be implemented by MS first on MS Office 2014. By them LibreOffice must be able to import and export that format. They will depreciate the old format MS-Office FF when they finally implement the ISO OOXML, which is not a complete open format since it still has a lot of proprietary hooks, but at least the base is openly specified. Even though I think it would be nice to be able to export to the transitional formats too, I agree that it a pain in the a But that's how MS is playing with the Open Standards and we have to win them in their own game. Cheers! Jaime R. Garza On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 23:29, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com wrote: I don't think anybody is saying LibO should drop .doc export -- just not try to export to the OOXML Transitional formats. In theory, MS will go to OOXML Strict in the 2014 (or whenever) release, and that should by then be a truly open format, if the comments submitted to the standards committee are properly worked off. Meanwhile, exporting to the Transitional form for new documents is specifically deprecated in the ISO standard; doing that really plays into a possible MS strategy to continue to ignore the Strict version forever, maintaining the proprietary lock-in while claiming to be open. Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. my thoughts anyway! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Larry Gusaas wrote: They will instead see an 'office suite' that doesn't support the formats they have and will go Well thats USELESS and delete it from their system and install an office suite which DOES have support, MS Office still can read and write to .doc format. LibO ability to write to .doc format if necessary is sufficient for interchange with MS office users Nope, it's not. And the gap is widening. Also, nobody is gonna write, and QA, a decent export filter for ooxml in 6 months, should MS once axe binary support ... Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
OOo and LibO already do read those formats -- it's only the capability to write them that's an issue. The Go-OO version and its derivatives, and as a consequence now LibO, write them, and objecting to that is what started this whole (enormous) thread. The standard as written already deprecates the use of the Transitional standard for new documents; MS, and LibO etc., really shouldn't do it. Do you have information that the Strict form will still include proprietary hooks? On 1/1/2011 4:56 PM, Jaime R. Garza wrote: Well, we need to be able to import those transitional OOXML (2007-2010) formats. If we can save to them, is not really necessary, (since MS office suites 2007 2010 support MS-Office 2003 FF too), but is a nice to have feature. The real ISO OOXML will be implemented by MS first on MS Office 2014. By them LibreOffice must be able to import and export that format. They will depreciate the old format MS-Office FF when they finally implement the ISO OOXML, which is not a complete open format since it still has a lot of proprietary hooks, but at least the base is openly specified. Even though I think it would be nice to be able to export to the transitional formats too, I agree that it a pain in the a But that's how MS is playing with the Open Standards and we have to win them in their own game. Cheers! Jaime R. Garza On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 23:29, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com wrote: I don't think anybody is saying LibO should drop .doc export -- just not try to export to the OOXML Transitional formats. In theory, MS will go to OOXML Strict in the 2014 (or whenever) release, and that should by then be a truly open format, if the comments submitted to the standards committee are properly worked off. Meanwhile, exporting to the Transitional form for new documents is specifically deprecated in the ISO standard; doing that really plays into a possible MS strategy to continue to ignore the Strict version forever, maintaining the proprietary lock-in while claiming to be open. Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. my thoughts anyway! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Barbara, First, ODF IS the ISO standard - honestly made so without the dirty tricks that MS used to stuff the committee and force it to approve something that wasn't ready to be used by anyone. Second, MS refuses to support any ODF except the one that is actually an ISO standard. That makes their version of ODF suspect as to its actual compatibility. I don't suggest using the same tactics on MS as it is using on Open Source Software. Doing to others as they do to you is NOT a recommended tactic for honest people or organizations (though it's too often been used, in my arrogant opinion [There AIN'T no such thing as a humble opinion]). By being able to read .doc and .docx formats LO demonstrates it's willingness to at least reach out to MS and its customers. Therefore, LO ends up being the good guy. Craig Tyche On 01/01/2011 03:29 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: On 1/1/2011 11:07 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Hi Sveinn, Sure, but how about conservation and readability by future generations (when there's no more Microsoft knowledge around and nobody knows anymore how to decrypt all the nuances of.doc + .docx files) ? Fair point. But: most users do not care. Not exporting to Word will make it look like LibO is faulty. I have to save in MSO formats to share work with others. At work, we have an MSO policy. While I can use whatever I like on my desktop, I have to save spreadsheets in MSO formats because Excel 07 kills ODS formulae. If I prepare a document as ODT, the few Word 2003 dies-hards complain I am refusing to inter-operate. I do still assign student work to be submitted as either .doc or .odt and mark students down for using .docx (they failed to read the instructions). They are also marked down for not using proper spacing and a serif font. I don't want to see the .docx format spread any further and advocate using ODT as the default. However, not having the option to export as .doc and .docx will cause users to wonder if they want to promote LibO. I don't think anybody is saying LibO should drop .doc export -- just not try to export to the OOXML Transitional formats. In theory, MS will go to OOXML Strict in the 2014 (or whenever) release, and that should by then be a truly open format, if the comments submitted to the standards committee are properly worked off. Meanwhile, exporting to the Transitional form for new documents is specifically deprecated in the ISO standard; doing that really plays into a possible MS strategy to continue to ignore the Strict version forever, maintaining the proprietary lock-in while claiming to be open. Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Office on-the-web only saves in docx. Office 2013/4 will quite possibly drop .doc export, just as Word 6/95 export was dropped from Word 2003 - after a failed attempt to drop it from 2000. MS can do this because they are the market leader. To fail to offer even rudimentary docx export would damage LibO's market penetration. my thoughts anyway! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 01/01/2011 11:29 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Several of the comments here suggest a middle road, allowing the save but with a message clarifying the limitations of the format (and perhaps recommending use of the XP formats if interoperating with an MS-only shop; their ODF support is not truly interoperable at a reasonable level, the older formats come closer). That seems reasonable, at least for editing documents that are received in these formats -- I'm not convinced it should be allowed for new work, though. At the least, the SaveAs dialog should label the format using the word Transitional. It probably makes sense to start working towards OOXML Strict export as soon as that is a reasonably stationary target, though. Wouldn't it be great if LibO were the first implementation compliant with the ISO standard? And if the other FOSS implementations also headed there, we could beat MS at their own game! Standards support is a thorny field. The reality is that no one supports a standard by default, but only with a specific choice in configuration (including LibreOffice with ODF, as 1.2 is not yet the standard format and 1.2 Extended is not going to be a standard). Supporting OOXML Strict today would make LO not compatible with MS Office, and users do want interoperability and not just standard compliance. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
@Larry Gusaas During the last 12 months alot of of big businesses have changed over to Windows 7 and MSO 2007/2010. As most people dont care about the format they will just save it as docx. Most will not even know the difference because they will buy the software that their business has. LibreOffice being able to write to .doc isn't going to be enough when everyone around you is using the format equivalent of Win7 and you're still using the equivalent of Win98/2000. The vibe i got from the original poster and a few subsequent posters was that of stopping support entirely, both read and write, rather than just write. gStreamer is a de-facto media framework. Some programs you use everyday probably use it. If my use of gStreamer was to hard for you then replace it with FFMpeg. It achieves the same objective. And dont just think that because i know a few computer terms that you don't that I run Linux. Not every smart person uses it even though it is a better system than Windows. The reason it fails is really the same as why OOo/LO struggle against MSO, people dont see it as a viable alternative. In linux's case its because people think that it HAS to be advanced and that it isn't user friendly. In OOo/LO's case people see that it doesn't have the features they need (.docx support) and, camparative to MSO, looks a-shambles, with a GUI akin to the MSO 97-2003 era. On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.comwrote: On 2010/12/31 1:02 AM Sean White wrote: IF LibreOffice pulls .docx support then people WONT congratulate us on the strength of our morals. Nobody suggest not being able to read .docx files, only that LibO should no be able to write to that format. They will instead see an 'office suite' that doesn't support the formats they have and will go Well thats USELESS and delete it from their system and install an office suite which DOES have support, MS Office still can read and write to .doc format. LibO ability to write to .doc format if necessary is sufficient for interchange with MS office users we happen to support a format that is used by 80+% of all 'Office Suite' users. Older versions of MS office do not use the new formats. Many users of MS Office 2007 and newer still save in the older formats. Nowhere near 80+% of MS Office users the new file formats. Its kinda like going to the gStreamer forums and saying I'm going to iTunes because you support WMA. Totally irrelevant comment. What is gStreamer? Oh, wait a minute, it is probably a Linuts program. Larry -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 31/12/10 07:07, Larry Gusaas wrote: You have it backward. If LibO writes in OOXML they are doing Microsofts bidiing. The world is slowly demanding open document formats. By supporting MS proprietary formats LibO is helping to perpetuate their hegemony. If LibreOffice were to write in OOXML it would be supporting MS by giving them another implementation of the current OOXML format. There is also a distinct possibility that LbreOffice would loose credibility within the open source community. Before anyone spends any more time on LibreOffice writing in the OOXML format I would suggest you read these two articles. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/iso-ooxml-convener-microsofts-format-heading-for-failure.ars From Alex Brown, the convener of ISO's OOXML subcommittee http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx -- Rob Unsworth -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Sean White schreef: Oracle who are in a bigger campaign of open-source destruction than MS is at the moment, I know some anti-Oracle sentiment can be expected here, but seriously... -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files. None of you get the point, do you. 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) 2. Changing the format may well lose formatting in the document that is not supported in the older document type. 3. .doc, .xls and .ppt are Microsoft proprietary formats anyway - it's just that they are much easier to analyse... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name when saving the file. They will say why can't this program simply save my changes?. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 10:07:30 AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker (gbpli...@gmail.com) wrote: None of you get the point, do you. 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. arrogant my foot. If somebody smokes in my face it is not arrogant to tell him/her to stop. It is my right, period. For the very same reason, if people send you a document in a proprietary format you are not arrogant to complain, you would be wrong to _not_ complain. What is arrogant is sending proprietary formats when you could avoid it, even after others have explained how wrong it is. Then of course, keep tolerating and using a proprietary format may be still practically _unavoidable_ in many cases, no question about it. I am in several of those cases myself. But it would be really wrong to always do this by _default_, without even trying to inform who is doing it that they ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG and that they should stop, because they're creating problems to themselves and every other user of the files they produce, by using formats that give cocain-like addiction: http://stop.zona-m.net/?p=367 (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, and even in Thunderbird this is an option, not an always on uncheangeble behavior. And EVEN if it were true, it would be a wrong comparison, because with email the choice is between formats that are both open (plain text or HTML). Marco F. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Il 31/12/2010 11:32, M. Fioretti ha scritto: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 10:07:30 AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker (gbpli...@gmail.com) wrote: None of you get the point, do you. 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. arrogant my foot. If somebody smokes in my face it is not arrogant to tell him/her to stop. It is my right, period. yes it is your right, but to not be smoked on your face is seen as your right by others (even if other is your boss), but to send a document in another format (mainly if the receiver is your boss or customer) isn't seen as your right For the very same reason, if people send you a document in a proprietary format you are not arrogant to complain, you would be wrong to _not_ complain. What is arrogant is sending proprietary formats when you could avoid it, even after others have explained how wrong it is. Then of course, keep tolerating and using a proprietary format may be still practically _unavoidable_ in many cases, no question about it. I am in several of those cases myself. But it would be really wrong to always do this by _default_, without even trying to inform who is doing it that they ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG and that they should stop, because they're creating problems to themselves and every other user of the files they produce, by using formats that give cocain-like addiction: http://stop.zona-m.net/?p=367 (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, and even in Thunderbird this is an option, not an always on uncheangeble behavior. And EVEN if it were true, it would be a wrong comparison, because with email the choice is between formats that are both open (plain text or HTML). Marco F. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 31 December 2010 11:35, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. It's more likely just that the replier didn't think it was a big deal ;-) I don't think that most people that send me .docs are arrogant. Ignorant perhaps. Personally I don't see why there is such a big hang up about HTML in e-mails since web based mail is now very common and it is an open standard. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQwww.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André hyperquan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name when saving the file. They will say why can't this program simply save my changes?. You can get away with being arrogant when you have 80% of the market. Most of the people using a WP have no idea about file formats, they will assume if it comes in as it needs to go out as . (Actually a lot will never even have used save as..) If there is no facility to do this there is a reasonable chance they will reject the use of the software out of hand. This isn't about logic to a sophisticated computer user, it is about the average user who has no technical knowledge and has picked up a WP by trial and error. MS by luck or judgement have been very good at exploiting ignorance. School systems don't teach word processing, they teach MS Word. It's why we need better education and a certification programme for users that covers stuff like file formats and the principles of WP not just one product. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQwww.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:51, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André hyperquan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name when saving the file. They will say why can't this program simply save my changes?. You can get away with being arrogant when you have 80% of the market. Right. But LibreOffice doesn't have that kind of market share... Most of the people using a WP have no idea about file formats, they will assume if it comes in as it needs to go out as . (Actually a lot will never even have used save as..) If there is no facility to do this there is a reasonable chance they will reject the use of the software out of hand. Indeed. I argued that forcing users to save an OOXML document in another format is something that users will not understand at first, and they probably won't like it either. As for the save as, with the read-only OOXML policy they will see a dialog appear that they only expect to see when saving a brand new document (that has no filename yet) or when explicitly doing save as. This isn't about logic to a sophisticated computer user, it is about the average user who has no technical knowledge and has picked up a WP by trial and error. And that is why I think it's a bad idea to have the application do something they do not expect. MS by luck or judgement have been very good at exploiting ignorance. School systems don't teach word processing, they teach MS Word. It's why we need better education and a certification programme for users that covers stuff like file formats and the principles of WP not just one product. Better education for users would be the optimal solution, but it's not something you can force to happen. And it will not 'fix' all those people that already got their 'education' in the past. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Gordon Em 31-12-2010 08:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker escreveu: On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: (snip) None of you get the point, do you. 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) Actually I am more pragmatic. I do ask myself who *signs* the check, and how many digits it bears. Then I choose the file format I have to work. :-) -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
A possible compromise???: move all (I mean ALL) non native formats to the Export menu and let save/save as for the native formats only. Also, disable the possibility to change the default format for saving documents: in my experience on forums, many problems are fixed when you explain users that it is not good idea to use ms formats to _store_ files, that they need to use ODF to store and export only when needed. 2010/12/31 Kevin André hyperquan...@gmail.com: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:51, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2010 10:37, Kevin André hyperquan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:07, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) I agree. And users will wonder why they can open a document they received, make some simple changes, but are asked for different name when saving the file. They will say why can't this program simply save my changes?. You can get away with being arrogant when you have 80% of the market. Right. But LibreOffice doesn't have that kind of market share... Most of the people using a WP have no idea about file formats, they will assume if it comes in as it needs to go out as . (Actually a lot will never even have used save as..) If there is no facility to do this there is a reasonable chance they will reject the use of the software out of hand. Indeed. I argued that forcing users to save an OOXML document in another format is something that users will not understand at first, and they probably won't like it either. As for the save as, with the read-only OOXML policy they will see a dialog appear that they only expect to see when saving a brand new document (that has no filename yet) or when explicitly doing save as. This isn't about logic to a sophisticated computer user, it is about the average user who has no technical knowledge and has picked up a WP by trial and error. And that is why I think it's a bad idea to have the application do something they do not expect. MS by luck or judgement have been very good at exploiting ignorance. School systems don't teach word processing, they teach MS Word. It's why we need better education and a certification programme for users that covers stuff like file formats and the principles of WP not just one product. Better education for users would be the optimal solution, but it's not something you can force to happen. And it will not 'fix' all those people that already got their 'education' in the past. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:31, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: A possible compromise???: move all (I mean ALL) non native formats to the Export menu and let save/save as for the native formats only. Also, disable the possibility to change the default format for saving documents: in my experience on forums, many problems are fixed when you explain users that it is not good idea to use ms formats to _store_ files, that they need to use ODF to store and export only when needed. There are still people who can actually use OOo instead of MSO, because of the option to change the default format. I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely, but when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format display a confirmation message which says something like: You are saving your file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that the file will still open correctly in another program. Please use an open file format for saving your document if possible. Are you still sure you wish to save in the current format? And display a checkbox below that can disable the message, or maybe add a note You can disable this message by going to Options-. and have no checkbox at all. And the message would appear by default even for the binary MS formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...). MS Office does the same thing when saving in ODF format, and they seem to lack an option to disable the message, even when the document to be saved uses only features that are completely supported by ODF. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/31/2010 10:03 AM, Kevin André wrote: I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely, but when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format display a confirmation message which says something like: You are saving your file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that the file will still open correctly in another program. Please use an open file format for saving your document if possible. Are you still sure you wish to save in the current format? And display a checkbox below that can disable the message, or maybe add a note You can disable this message by going to Options-. and have no checkbox at all. And the message would appear by default even for the binary MS formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...). This is a much better idea. However, I should note that even ODF files--despite the hype--are not 100% on preserving formatting when moved from one application to another. I have my letterhead saved as ODF done in OOo, but when I open it in AbiWord the formatting is all over the place. - -- Steven Shelton Deputy Undersecretary for Made-up Titles -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0eAVIACgkQO+AD2HqgRoAjEQCgtP6N89BiTGWq+bUaO+rgfsmt LJcAn0j5u5MRhvhlxLtUWjZVVO6L1Yh7 =hFE0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Il 31/12/2010 15:31, RGB ES ha scritto: A possible compromise???: move all (I mean ALL) non native formats to the Export menu and let save/save as for the native formats only. Also, disable the possibility to change the default format for saving documents: in my experience on forums, many problems are fixed when you explain users that it is not good idea to use ms formats to _store_ files, that they need to use ODF to store and export only when needed. very good idea:-) +1 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 17:14, Steven Shelton ste...@sheltonlegal.net wrote: On 12/31/2010 10:03 AM, Kevin André wrote: I would suggest the following instead. Support OOXML completely, but when the user saves his/her document in a proprietary format display a confirmation message which says something like: You are saving your file in a proprietary format. We cannot guarantee that the file will still open correctly in another program. Please use an open file format for saving your document if possible. Are you still sure you wish to save in the current format? And display a checkbox below that can disable the message, or maybe add a note You can disable this message by going to Options-. and have no checkbox at all. And the message would appear by default even for the binary MS formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, ...). This is a much better idea. However, I should note that even ODF files--despite the hype--are not 100% on preserving formatting when moved from one application to another. I have my letterhead saved as ODF done in OOo, but when I open it in AbiWord the formatting is all over the place. I know. But users need to be informed, even if it's with a short message that is not 100 percent accurate. Maybe a longer explanation could be provided in a help file or something, and then provide a reference to it from the short message. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 12/31/10 05:07 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files. None of you get the point, do you. 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? 2. Changing the format may well lose formatting in the document that is not supported in the older document type. Changing the format is inevitable. Libreoffice and OOo converts it to ODF when it opens/imports the docx. When you save that document as a .doc file Libreoffice and OOo simply export it to that format. There are two conversion, opening and saving. As I stated previously, saving to .docx will not be as accurate as saving to .doc until it matures. 3. .doc, .xls and .ppt are Microsoft proprietary formats anyway - it's just that they are much easier to analyse... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2010/12/31 12:15 PM Carl Symons wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Paul Gresspgr...@optonline.net wrote: I checked my OOo, dev m95 (3.4), it doesn't support save as docx and 3.3 rc8 (3.3 m18) also doesn't support docx in save as. What version are you using that supports docx? From standard Kubuntu 10.10 repositories... OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 OOO320m19 (Build:9505) ooo-build 3.2.1.4, Ubuntu package 1:3.2.1-7ubuntu1 That is the Go-OO derivative. OOo downloaded from the OpenOffice.org website do not write to .docx format. Larry Until this discussion thread, I was unaware of any difference. IIRC, this version of OOo comes standard on the Kubuntu Live/Install CD, and updated through standard repositories. (The startup splash screen has the Oracle logo.) Much different from a Windows installation. Whadda mess! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Þann fös 31.des 2010 17:04, skrifaði Paul Gress: On 12/31/10 05:07 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: On 30/12/10 20:41, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files. Sure, but how about conservation and readability by future generations (when there's no more Microsoft knowledge around and nobody knows anymore how to decrypt all the nuances of.doc + .docx files) ? None of you get the point, do you. 1. It is arrogant to return a document in a format different to that which was sent to you. (That's why email clients always reply in the same format in which the original message was received) --- It must be arrogant for them to send you a format you don't support. Also, if the Win 7 users don't know what format the documents are in, why does it matter if it's returned to them in a .doc format? -- Think you hit the nail on the head, pal. Those who ignore any notion of a file format, will do it both ways, always, anyways... Best regards, Sveinn í Felli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. No..what's arrogant is insisting I use an MUA that supports HTML just so I can reply in the same format to some ignorant jerk who sends me a circus poster for an email. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. Nowhat's arrogant is someone insisting I use an MUA that supports HTML just so I can reply in kind to some clueless jerk who sent me a circus poster for an email. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. Please excuse the double reply to this post. It was inadvertent. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Sorry to get into the discussion, but what are your goals, to be arrogant, or not? Or to make ODF the defacto standard which saddly is still NOT? The important thing is to fulfill the needs from potential users, specially in the enterprise. *e.g. *E-mail composers in the enterprise usually support text, RTF and HTML, and will automatically reply in the same format, why? Because enterprise users need to support all market standards! The same applies for File Formats, the enterprise users need to support the maket-share leaders, and even though we don't like it, the market leaders are still MS File Formats. It's not about being arrogant, or making a point, is about winning market-share, and if we don't understand that, we already lost the race. Cheers! Jaime R. Garza On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 01:10, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:35:24AM +, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: On 31/12/10 10:32, M. Fioretti wrote: wrong. Mine (mutt) doesn't for example, Then I would plonk you immediately. How do you not see that that is TOTALLY ARROGANT? If I send you an email in plain text and you reply in HTML, because YOU want to, that is complete rudeness and intolerance. Please excuse the double reply to this post. It was inadvertent. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:51:48AM +, Ian Lynch wrote: School systems don't teach word processing, they teach MS Word. It's why we need better education and a certification programme for users that covers stuff like file formats and the principles of WP not just one product. What's really infuriating is the listing of these various classes as computer classes. They have little to do with computers. They only teach where to point and click in MSO programs. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
HI Em 30-12-2010 18:41, Larry Gusaas escreveu: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files. The thing is, *you can* prevent LibreOffice/OOo from writing in proprietary format. This requires a configuration in one of the xcu/xcs config files. Happy new year -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Thank you Olivier for jumping in on this as one of the TDF founders. And thank you for helping to make LibreOffice happen. More below... On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Olivier Hallot olivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org wrote: HI Em 30-12-2010 18:41, Larry Gusaas escreveu: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files. The thing is, *you can* prevent LibreOffice/OOo from writing in proprietary format. This requires a configuration in one of the xcu/xcs config files. Happy new year -- Olivier Hallot If it is this easy to disable selected formats, I ask that the TDF Steering Committee take the suggestions in this conversation thread into consideration. Larry Gusaas has cited some sources (in the thread starter) that suggest that Microsoft is again (ab)using their near-monopoly market position to subvert openness. While there's no need for the TDF to police or punish Microsoft's behavior, there are strong reasons for the LibreOffice community to stand for and protect the open nature of LibO applications and their file formats. There is no reason to support writing/saving as docx/OOXML except to go along with Microsoft's anti-open fraud and deception. Carl Symons -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
I have come into this thread a little late but i may just have a slightly clearer view of things. In the world of office suites, MS almost has a monopoly. They have the power to to make their formats the standard. IF LibreOffice pulls .docx support then people WONT congratulate us on the strength of our morals. They will instead see an 'office suite' that doesn't support the formats they have and will go Well thats USELESS and delete it from their system and install an office suite which DOES have support, which in this case is MSO thus strengthening MS position in the market. This is the opposite of what we want to happen with LibreOffice. The validity of the standard and the fact that its a proprietary format aside, if LibreOffice doesn't play ball, the we get shoved of the court. As a side note, I find it slightly hypocritical that the original poster advocates going back to OO.o, which is now controlled by Oracle who are in a bigger campaign of open-source destruction than MS is at the moment, because we happen to support a format that is used by 80+% of all 'Office Suite' users. Its kinda like going to the gStreamer forums and saying I'm going to iTunes because you support WMA. On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.comwrote: On 2010/12/30 7:09 PM Carl Symons wrote: One minor point here...OOo also supports writing to docx format. Official OpenOffice.org builds do not support writing to the .docx format. The Go-OO derivative does write to the .docx format (probably because of the agreement between Microsoft and Novell). Go-OO is the version used on many Linux distros. There are many reports on OOo forums of problems caused by the poorly tested additions included in Go-OO. LibreOffice is based on Go-OO. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas *Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese * -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Maybe saving in ...x formats should be disabled by default so that the user must make a conscious decision to allow them. But to some extent this discussion misses two key points: 1) Application quality The default de-facto format will inevitably follow the dominant application. It's probably impossible to be a frequent OOO/LibO user without meeting serious bugs and having ones own list of things that need to be fixed. I certainly have mine. My professional experience with MSO was quite different, ie almost no troubling bugs. Apart from any other consideration, for pretty well any commercial organisation, the resulting support/user hassle cost of adopting OOO/LibO far exceeds the cost of adopting MSO, even from scratch for a new organisation. To illustrate the problem, you just need to inspect the OOO P2 issues which are regularly postponed release after release. Regretfully, for this reason it is very difficult to claim that OOO/LibO is a professional level application. When it is, many more users will flock to it and the format battle is much more likely to resolve itself in favour of ODF. 2) Chrome OS In 2011 people will be buying notebooks without hard disks running Chrome OS, certainly cheaper including much lower support costs, probably faster too, and these users will be able to work cooperatively with their data entirely in the cloud. Perhaps 90% of users will potentially no longer need MSO, OOO, LibO or any of the associated formats. It's hard to say whether this will be game changing or just very important, it will depend on how well it works in practice, but given the self-evident quality and astonishing rate of development of Google's applications, my money is on game changing. Mike Hall On 31/12/2010 05:21, Carl Symons wrote: Thank you Olivier for jumping in on this as one of the TDF founders. And thank you for helping to make LibreOffice happen. More below... On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Olivier Hallot olivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org wrote: HI Em 30-12-2010 18:41, Larry Gusaas escreveu: On 2010/12/30 2:19 PM Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid Yes you can do something about it. Don't enable writing in that format. Use PDF's for communicating. If a MS user needs to be able to modify a document, use .doc format. There is no need to use .docx format. MS Office 2008 and 2011 can still read .doc files. The thing is, *you can* prevent LibreOffice/OOo from writing in proprietary format. This requires a configuration in one of the xcu/xcs config files. Happy new year -- Olivier Hallot If it is this easy to disable selected formats, I ask that the TDF Steering Committee take the suggestions in this conversation thread into consideration. Larry Gusaas has cited some sources (in the thread starter) that suggest that Microsoft is again (ab)using their near-monopoly market position to subvert openness. While there's no need for the TDF to police or punish Microsoft's behavior, there are strong reasons for the LibreOffice community to stand for and protect the open nature of LibO applications and their file formats. There is no reason to support writing/saving as docx/OOXML except to go along with Microsoft's anti-open fraud and deception. Carl Symons -- Mike Hall www.onepoyle.net -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***