10 Nov
2005
10 Nov
'05
9:57 p.m.
Before OASIS OpenDocument was proposed to the public (pushed by the
European Union itself, to rid themselves of using a format that'd be
tied to a specific application, free or not), the format that
documents should be in wasn't really standardized. There's many that
claim that Microsoft's formats are standard, while not everything
about the formats are known outside of Microsoft. Then there's the
pseudo-standards like Rich Text or CSV that often get the job done,
but have serious limitations (and even extensions by things like Corel
or Microsoft that reduce those formats interoperatability).
OpenDocument truely promises to be the cure for this. It was developed
by an idependent organization (not Sun or anyone else), and the format
allows for virtually every feature expected in an office suite. And
the beauty of being XML is that if you are writting a program, and its
missing a feature, another program will ignore that section of code
and instead display what it can (hopefully not down to _just_ the bare
content; but at least it'd be readable).
And on top of this, the claim/assumption that OpenOffice.org is the
only program that supports it is simply not true. KOffice implemented
OpenDocument far before OOo 2.0 went into the production stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Applications_supporting_OpenDocum…
My plea for not using a Microsoft format does not call for a format
that only a few applications support, even though it's open (eg, the
AbiWord XML format isn't widely supported). Nor does it call for an
extremely limited format like Rich Text Format. It calls for a
fully-featured, well supported (and more applications to come, for
sure), and open format.
On 11/10/05, David Johnson <davidjohnson.johnson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Chuck E. Cheese, CEC entertainment Inc. only uses OOo.
Just FYI
On 11/10/05, Les Cooper <leigh-cottage(a)tiscali.co.uk > wrote:
--
Mike
Michael B. Trausch wrote:
small percentage of (ordinary) people use OO.o, that to produce files in its
own format is pissing into the wind. However, I can tell people how the
files were produced and recommend OO.o to them. The important thing at the
moment is not the use of open document formats, it is persuading people to
use OO.o so that the user base is broad enough for them to used!
Mike Swanson wrote:
[snip]
I only use OO.o but my default save format is as ms office formats. Such a >You do not need to feel strongarmed into using
Impress' file format.
>You can save it in Impress' file format as well as exporting it to
>Microsoft's PowerPoint format. Just an idea.
>
>
Just because Impress supports PowerPoint documents, doesn't meant it's
complete or perfect. Just like the DOC (Word) and XLS (Excel) formats,
it's secret and must be reverse engineered. And similar to DOC and
XLS, the non-Microsoft parsing of them changes between free software
programs. Sometimes better in some documents, sometimes worse in
other. Hell, sometimes it's impossible to see what the document was
even intended to look like (eg, the MS Word-created flyer I was trying
to see)
I understand. Perhaps I didn't say what I was meaning to: If OO.o is
used to generate the document, OO.o will parse it the same way. I was
saying that if the proprietary formats are "needed," then OO.o can save
them -- interoperability works nearly perfectly, IME, going from OO.o to
Office, however, coming back from the other direction seems to break
with documents with more advanced formatting. While I'm sure they're
working on it, I try to avoid them, anyway. I hate proprietary stuff,
and avoid whenever possible. (And no: I'm not quite as bad as some
people on the subject, such as RMS.)
Cheers
Les
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
--
David Johnson
http://www.davefilms.us
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev