[odf-discuss] plug-in and ODF 1.2 (was: Miguel on OXML)

[Thomas Zander]

On Friday 02 February 2007 21:16, marbux wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 February 2007 23:11, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > > On 2/1/07, marbux <marbux at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > I am told by the Foundation's developers that, once we have
> > > > applications that are conformant with ODF v. 1.2, full
> > > > interoperability is an achievable goal. It will be feasible to map
> > > > every Office feature to ODF.
> >
> > I think the proper wording is "it will be feasible to store every office
> > feature in an ODF file"
>
> I actually meant what I said. :-) The key words being "achievable" and
> "feasible." But I should have provided more detail. Let me have a
> crack first at rewording your alternative statement and discussing
> those changes first.

Well, from a programmers POV at least, your version implies that there will be 
an equivalent feature defined in the ODF spec for each and every Office 
feature. Including expected behavior and all.
From your explanation we agree that that will not be the case; instead the 
features will merely be stored in the ODF file, not necessarily in a format 
that any ODF compliant app will understand.

Which is what I tried to say with my alternative statement :)

> "It will be mandatory to preserve all MS Office metadata and dark
> objects in an ODF file."

Probably off topic for this mailing list; but making something mandatory for 
any specification is a really bad idea. If OOo is now ODF compliant and this 
comes out that means we can't state we are ODF Compliant anymore ? That's 
just evil.

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070202/23dd2113/attachment-0001.pgp