Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

----- Original Message ----

> From: Barbara Duprey <Barb@onr.com>
> On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Barbara,
> >
> >  Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
> > Barbara Duprey<Barb@onr.com>  a écrit  :
> >
> > > On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:
> > > >  Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
> > > >  [...]
> > > >
> > > > > inconsistencies. However, it's  fortunately or unfortunately,
> > > > > should not be a problem:  OOo&   LibO implement the existing and
> > > > > used version  of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007
> > > > > and 2010  that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO
> > > > > standard,  far from that; feel free to call them transitional if
> > > > > you  wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them
> > > > >  MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer  convenience
> > > > > to its
> > > > This is the point. MS  Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
> > > > 29300 also called  OOXML.
> > > >
> > > > Please change the subject because it's  completely messing. Call
> > > > simply MS XML proprietary  formats.
> > > >
> > > > Davide
> > > They don't implement  the "Strict" version -- but I think we'd have a
> > > hard time arguing  that they don't implement the "Transitional"
> > > version that must also  be considered standard, it's documented in
> > > that specification, and  MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called
> > > these formats  proprietary, we could get into real trouble.
> > Well, the  problem is that it's not that documented. Really,
> > Transitional OOXML was  an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1.
> >
> > Basically the  deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean
> > (although I  don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the
> > transitional was  "offering more features" and was more in line with the
> > existing and used  formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this
> > stage we have no  evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats
> > used in MS office  suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad
> > will against MS:  it's a really important question.
> >
> > best,
>
> Thanks! Very  interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these 
> "proprietary" formats,  though, 
>
> even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not  sure I buy 
> that "honourable" way 
>
> out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving,  yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard 
> time applying that term 
>
> to what happened  there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of 
> it, trying to stop  the 
>
> juggernaut that was rolling over the process.

While I do agree per your "honourable" comment...

OOXML in any form[1] is certainly not standard, nor is it open.
So what _would_ you call it if you were not going to call it what it really is 
(proprietary)?

Honestly, we shouldn't be trying to be politically correct, but rather honest, 
if not bluntly so.

Call out Microsoft on their lack of following even their own standard; it'll 
have a greater impact as the community rallies behind that instead of trying to 
be politically correct and let them get away with doing what they've done.

A goose by any other name is still a goose.

Ben

[1] Even Microsoft makes no qualms about not following ISO OOXML or even  giving 
you options so that you know you are writing ISO OOXML -  transitional or 
strict.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***