On 24/11/2011, italovignoli <[email protected]> wrote: > I am a TDF Director and one of the official spokespersons. > > > e-letter wrote >> >> >>> In other words, do not waste LO programmers' time to resolve your desire >>> to use LO as a free m$o clone. >> >> You are assuming something completely wrong here. In the future, please >> avoid such statements, and - even more important - please listen to people >> on this mailing list who seem to be better informed than you are. >>
What exactly is being assumed? Better informed about what? The original statement is merely a declaration of personal interest; a preference that limited time spent resolving "compatibility" is instead spent improving native odf. >> TDF developers are working hard to improve the level of interoperability >> with many file formats, because we want LibreOffice to be both the best >> implementation of ODF (a format that we want to be the standard for >> electronic documents) and the most interoperable office suite. >> A fundamentally poor strategy; of the two objectives what do think is higher priority: highest quality implementation of odf; or being "interoperable"? More interestingly, how can perfect interoperability lead to greater usage of odf? >> Users are free to use LibreOffice to read and write RTF and DOC/XLS/PPT >> files (and even DOCX/XLSX/PPTX files), although they should understand >> that only ODF will provide the best level of document interoperability, as >> it is the native LibreOffice file format and it is also supported by the >> latest versions of MS Office for Windows. >> If odf is the best strategic route to interoperability, this seems a contradiction with the strategic aim to be perfect at producing m$ formats. If tdf were really serious about being sufficiently confident to promote odf, LO would have excellent m$ format import capability but document creation would only be in odf (as suggested by others). >> Of course, users should also understand that proprietary formats like RTF >> and legacy MS Office formats have been developed in order to lock them in >> into using MS Office, and should avoid the formats not because they are >> intrinsically bad (although they often are) but because they intentionally >> reduce their freedom. >> Review the bug reports and the mailing list posts; it can be seen that users do not appreciate the strategic error in using LO to create m$ documents. >> Although user habits could let many user think that MS Office legacy >> formats are the most practical for interoperability, they should not >> overlook the fact that by sticking to MS Office legacy format they >> perpetuate their lock in into Microsoft products. >> See comment above. Without forcing novice users to either pay m$ or use a free(dom) alternative, odf usage will remain low. >> TDF is actively promoting ODF, which is the format of choice for all >> actual and future versions of LibreOffice. ODF is not only open and >> standard, but is also easier to implement than other ISO standard formats. >> For instance, OOXML has been approved as ISO standard in 2008, but after >> almost four years is still implemented in the non standard "transitional" >> version even by Microsoft (the company behind the original format) because >> of the incredible complexity of the format (confirmed by the length of the >> documentation of over 7.200 pages, i.e. almost six times as many as the >> ODF documentation). >> The _passive_ promotion of m$ is greater than the active promotion of odf. To prove this point, why not create a simple poll on the web site: users distributing LO documents is m$ formats; against users distributing LO documents in odf? -- 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
