On 3/16/2014 12:24 PM, Jim Seymour jseym...@linxnet.com wrote:
I don't think the OP's original question silly. I think he or she
wanted to know if LibréOffice's support for MS Office formats was
compatible with those of MS Office's.
A reasonable question, in my view.
If the question was is
On 16/03/2014, Jim Seymour jseym...@linxnet.com wrote:
Practical implementations of a proposed standard are wonderful, but,
before it's part of the standard, documents written with such
extensions are, _by definition_, non-standard formats.
It's a worry that some users prefer new features
On 3/16/2014 12:07 PM, Jim Seymour jseym...@linxnet.com wrote:
Once again: Putting the cart before the horse. LO does not define
the standard. OASIS or ISO (depending upon one's perspective, I
suppose) defines the standard. LO's responsibility is to faithfully
*implement* the standard.
As
On 17/03/14 11:41, e-letter wrote:
It's a worry that some users prefer new features over standards
compliance and quality control.
Please do not see new software features as changes to the document
format. Over 99% of new features do not have any impact on the document
format, which is the
On March 17, 2014 3:41:24 AM PDT, e-letter wrote:
It's a worry that some users prefer new features over standards compliance
and quality control.
It is extremely rare for features to have a negative impact on standards
compliance.
It is not uncommon for features to enhance standards
Owen Genat wrote
No. The information provided by Italo up-thread is correct:
italovignoli wrote
... ODF 1.2 which is in the process of becoming an ISO standard (backward
compatible with ODF 1.0). Standard definitions, by their own nature, are
moving slowly.
Interesting. This means that ODF
On 16/03/14 09:01, Pedro wrote:
This just proves my point (going back to the comment by nabbler) that it if
the bureaucracy takes so long, you can't really blame MS (or any other
vendor) for not being 100% compatible.
No. Compatibility is measured against the standard (ISO ODF 1.0 / OASIS
On 15/03/2014, Jim Seymour jseym...@linxnet.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
nabbler wrote
Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF
standard of LO
THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an ODF standard
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Owen Genat owen.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
There is a statement on the OASIS website (which
unfortunately I cannot find at present) which indicates that in
order for a new feature to be included in ODF-Next by OASIS, it
must first be implemented in a
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
In fact it is impossible that any other office suite produces 100%
compatible ODF documents since by definition LO is one of the
products defining the ODF characteristics...
[snip]
Once again: Putting the cart
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:43:09 +
e-letter inp...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
The original question asked whether LO is compatible with m$, hence
the reciprocal question as the answer.
It is not known why the original poster (HB) asked this (silly)
question: ...
[snip]
I don't think the
On 03/16/2014 12:24 PM, Jim Seymour wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:43:09 +
e-letter inp...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
The original question asked whether LO is compatible with m$, hence
the reciprocal question as the answer.
It is not known why the original poster (HB) asked this (silly)
nabbler wrote
Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of
LO
THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an ODF standard of LO.
If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF standard) is not able to
keep pace and improve on the document's definition to
On 15/03/14 11:25, Pedro wrote:
If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF standard) is not able to
keep pace and improve on the document's definition to make it a valid open
document standard, then the de facto standard will ALWAYS be the MS file
formats...
ODF has a clear path
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
nabbler wrote
Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of
LO
THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an ODF standard of LO.
If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
nabbler wrote
Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF
standard of LO
THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an ODF standard
of LO.
[snip]
I read that as compatible with the ODF
Hi Jim, all
Jim Seymour wrote
I read that as compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented in
LO. I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office?
Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement the ODF
standard?
As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all ODF
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jim, all
Jim Seymour wrote
I read that as compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented
in LO. I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office?
Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement
Hi Jim,
On 3/15/2014 4:58 PM, Jim Seymour wrote:
...
As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all ODF
specifications. But since LO is pushing the ODF file format, the
current LO implementation is more advanced than the current
approved OASIS standard (e.g. LO supports font embedding)
Jim Seymour wrote
No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is
non-standard.
I can't figure out how calling someone a weasel can be *not* offensive...
I'm not affiliated to TDF/LO so this is just my opinion and I don't have any
advantage in convincing anyone to use LO/ODF and
Hi :)
E-letter's post was somewhat confusing. ODF 1.2 is used by many
programs and suites and is implemented almost identically in all of
them.
You can even post bug-reports in the various programs and suites if
you do find any difference between implementation and written
specification. Errr,
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:12:51 +0100
Werner werner...@gmx.ch wrote:
Hi Jim,
[snip]
My understanding as a normal/basic user of LO is that it supports
the different ODF standards which exist, some of them approved by
OASIS and others not yet approved.
E.g. in writer you can select the ODF
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Seymour wrote
No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is
non-standard.
I can't figure out how calling someone a weasel can be *not*
offensive...
[snip]
My apologies. Bad choice of terms on
On 15/03/14 16:58, Jim Seymour wrote:
To be clear: I have no problem with LO implementing non-standard
behaviour, but that behaviour *must* be optional, with the switches
that enable it clearly noted as such.
You can select the default ODF document format from the Options menu.
You can choose
In data sabato 15 marzo 2014 13:34:01, pete nikolic ha scritto:
Has Urmas changed his username ? makes one wonder
I think so. In fact, its address is inpost(or)@gmail.com
The debunker is back.
--
Valter
Open Source is better!
LibreOffice: www.libreoffice.org
KDE: www.kde.org
Jim Seymour wrote
Pedro wrote:
So it's not a case that LO is not implementing the existing ODF
standards but that it is already improving on them (in an open
manner, unlike MS XML). So OASIS has to catch up :)
OASIS establishes the standards, no? If such is the case: What
you've written,
26 matches
Mail list logo
