On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 23:41, Anthony Papillion <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi :) >> MS don't implement their standard in the way that they wrote they would. >> Having set a standard >> anyone that follows that standard is guaranteed to produce things that are a >> little wonky when >> opened in MS Office. LO devs work at getting LO's implementation as wonky >> as MS's but the >> wonkiness is the unknown factor. > > Hi Tom, > > Ok, I can accept that. But then, aren't we back to a 'secret format'? If I > implement a standard to write out a file a certain way and do it in another > way that isn't documented then I'm not following the standard and, thus, my > filetype is secret. The only way it's *not* secret is if they file is written > to the standard without any deviations. > > At first, I thought 'ok, so this means MS has published a standard that other > vendors can write to and MS will has implemented that standard (in addition > to their secret one) so that MSO can always properly read other vendor > created MSO files". But that's not the case. There are times, it seems, when > LibO files are improperly rendered in MSO. > > So, apparently, the 'standard' really doesn't mean anything because that's > not really what Microsoft is doing. > > Anthony >
By that logic, LO uses a secret format as well. LO and OpenOffice.org deviate from the ODF standard in more documented ways than MS Office deviates from OOXML. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
