Dotan Cohen wrote:
But I agree with you 100% on the aspects of the problem, and that
'unifying' everything under a common document format was worse than
leaving it alone. Take your pick or a reference implementation and
file bugs against the other projects asking them to do something about
it. The bugs will no doubt be closed as invalid, but what else can we
do? The people who push for these open standards with no reference
implementation cannot fathom that we are better off with a proprietary
format that _does_have_ a reference implementation, namely MS Office.
I am as frustrated as you are. In the meantime I stick with OOo and
don't open my documents with other apps, but when MS Office 2007 SP1
comes along with it's own implementation of ODF I will likely
standardize on it if it runs in Wine (I use Ubuntu Linux). As for the
cost of MS Office 2007: I think it's worth it.
I'm going to be standardising on OOo, and I will be taking your advice
on filing bugs with Abi and KOffice. I don't think that the price is
worth it for MSOffice, especially given that they'll likely have a
non-valid ODF implementation and that, feature wise, there's nothing
extra in terms of value added.
However, I don't see why a reference implementation is needed. The whole
idea of content/presentation separation is to avoid this. In HTML, I
don't need a reference implementation to know that I use <ul> to set up
a bulleted list, for example. Any editor that knows that that is the
underlying markup should be able to non-destructively edit the markup
despite any presentational differences they may have.
I have been under the impression that the whole design goal of ODF was
to achieve this level of semantic abstraction, and there are no words to
express my disappointment at finding that this is not the case.
--
السلام عليكم
Web: www.mrnaz.com
Ph: +61 400 460 662
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
