2008/11/5 Naz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dotan Cohen wrote: >> >> That is strange. Are you sure that you are not using a beta OOo3 version? >> > > OK. I've found the answer, which raises another question. > > But first, the answer, which I am ashamed to have to explain here on a well > read public forum. > > Xubuntu, which I recently switched to, by default opens ODF files in > Abiword. Before upgrading to 8.10 I was using OOo2, and had removed Abiword > from the system, so I didn't have that issue. I only noticed that I was > opening the files in Abiword when I went to Help / About to check the > version number. > > Stupid, stupid stupid. I feel like a gigantic boob. > > Anyway, second question; Why aren't ODF files fully compatible between ODF > apps? Surely OOo and Abiword should handle each others' files perfectly? > Isn't that the whole point of ODF in the first place? >
Naz, the problem is that there is no reference implementation of odf. It is similar to the fact that different web browsers display websites differently, even though the websites are W3C compliant and so are the browsers. It is different interpretations of the same law, like Kashrut and Halal. Documents that use proper styles should display fine on all compliant systems, even if they will look different. But for the type of appearance-based editing that most people (including myself) do, they get mumbled. The situation will only get worse when MS Office starts supporting odf shortly, and they will have their own implementation that is likely not to be to spec. So you will have OOo, Koffice, and Abiword that all display the same document differently even thought everything is to spec, and you will have MS Office that displays things yet differently and is not to spec. And because MS Office is so widely deployed.... [insert doomsday theory here] -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת ä-ö-ü-ß-Ä-Ö-Ü
