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 1.2 is an OASIS approved standard since 2011 but isn't yet an ISO standard... So, I apologize to OASIS :) It's the ISO standard that takes ages... 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. 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... Absurdly Microsoft (as an OASIS member) could also legitimately be producing another ODF 1.2 extended file format (valid under OASIS) but completely different from the one in LO... So, the question "if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of LO " doesn't make sense ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-LO-compatibility-tp4101492p4101661.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe 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
