[odf-discuss] Microsoft and Novell cooperate on document formats

[Daniel Carrera]

On Fri, 2006-03-11 at 12:26 +0000, Ian Lynch wrote:
> It seems to
> me that if OOo has developed ODF in less than 10 years

ODF is not the one that Rob said "10 years", it's MOOX. There are
already three independent, high-quality implementations of ODF (OOo,
KOffice and IBM Workplace) and it's been like 1.5 years.

> If indeed Moox is so
> much more difficult to implement than ODF, MOOX is a dead duck before it
> even starts.

I hope so. Indeed, MOOX really is a gazillion times more difficult to
implement than MOOX. It's not just that the spec is 10 times larger, but
MOOX has a very difficult and odd syntax, whereas ODF's is quite
readable and transparent (for someone who does XML).

This is what MOOX looks like:

<w:p>
  <w:r>
    <w:t>Hello </w:t>
  </w:r>
  <w:r>
    <w:rPr>
      <w:b/>
    </w:rPr>
    <w:t>world</w:t>
  </w:r>
</w:p>

Here is ODF:

<text:p>
 Hello 
 <text:span text:style-name="Strong_Emphasis">world</text:span>
</text:p>


> Well that is also true for reverse engineering filters for OOo without
> the documentation as well as developing ODF and a whole host of other
> things in a lot less than 10 years so I can't see why it would take 10
> years even with these other constraints.

Uhmm... It *did* take them about 10 years. The OOo codebase is over 15
years old. And they still don't support it terribly well.


-- 
"I AM in shape. Round IS a shape."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20061107/7d601ccc/attachment-0002.pgp